Archive for June 2010

Dow Chemicals Part 2

Protest against Dow Chemicals

The original post on Dow stirred strong emotions both positively and negatively. The point is made. Whilst advocates of Dow are assured of its commitment to safety and ethical responsibility, critics claim the exact opposite. In the background meantime lurks Bhopal almost like a character from myth.

That Dow has a reputation problem must be admitted. A quick check of the Internet reveals a number of sites that list some of Dow’s issues. Here is a list of 20 areas of concern as Dow fights off it reputation, of which Agent Orange must figure at the top:

  1. Agent Orange/Napalm — The toxic herbicide and jellied gasoline used in Vietnam created horrors for young and old alike — and an uproar back home that forced Dow to rethink its public relations strategy.
  2. Rocky Flats — The top secret Colorado site managed by Dow Chemical from 1952 to 1975 remains an environmental nightmare for the Denver area.
  3. Body burden — In March 2001, the Centers for Disease Control reported that most people in the United States carry detectable levels of plastics, pesticides and heavy metals in their blood and urine.
  4. 2,4-D — An herbicide produced by Dow Chemical, 2,4-D is still in used for killing lawn weeds, crop weeds and range weeds, and along utility company rights-of way and railroad tracks. One of the key ingredients in Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used in Vietnam, 2,4-D is the most widely used herbicide in the world.
  5. Mercury — In Canada, Dow had been producing chlorine using the mercury cell method since 1947. Much of the mercury was recycled, but significant quantities were discharged into the environment through air emissions, water discharges, waste sludge and in end products. In March 1970, the governments of Ontario and Michigan detected high levels of mercury in the fish in the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and Lake Erie. Dow was sued by state and local officials for mercury pollution.
  6. PERC — Perchloroethylene is the hazardous substance used by dry cleaners everywhere. Dow tried to undermine safer alternatives.
  7. 2,4,5 T — This is one of the toxic ingredients in Agent Orange. Doyle says that “Dow just fought tooth and nail over this chemical — persisted every way it could in court and with the agencies, at the state and federal levels, to buy more time for this product. They went into a court in Arkansas in the early 1970s to challenge the EPA administrator. They did that to buy some extra marketing time, and they got two years, even though it appears that Dow knew this chemical was a bad actor by then, caused birth defects in lab animals, and was also being found in human body fat by then. But it wasn’t until 1983 that Dow quit making 2,4,5-T in the United States, and 1987 before they quit production in New Zealand. And 2,4,5-T health effects litigation continues to this day.”
  8. Busting unions — In 1967, unions represented almost all of Dow’s production workers. But since then, according to the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, Dow undertook an “unapologetic campaign to rid itself of unions.”
  9. Silicone — The key ingredient for silicone breast implants, made by a joint venture between Dow and Corning (Dow Corning), made women sick. Litigation over silicone breast implants — removed from the market more than a decade ago — continues.
  10. DBCP — DBCP is the toxic active ingredient in the Dow pesticide Fumazone. Doctors who tested men who worked with DBCP thought they had vasectomies — they had no sperm present.
  11. Dursban — Dursban is the trade name for chlorpyrifos, a toxic pesticide, a product that proved to have the nerve agent effects that Rachel Carson warned about. It was tested on prisoners in New York in 1971 and in 1998 at a lab in Lincoln, Nebraska. It replaced DDT when DDT was banned in 1972. A huge seller, in June 2000, EPA limited its use and forced it off the market at the end of 2004.
  12. Dow at Christmas — “Uses of Dow plastics by the toy industry are across the board,” boasted Dow Chemical in an internal company memo one Christmas season — “and more and more of our materials are found under the Christmas tree and on the birthday table, make some child, some toy company, and Dow, very happy indeed.” Among the chemicals used in these toys — polystyrene, polyethylene, ethylene copolymer resins, saran resins, PVC resins, or vinyls and ethyl cellulose. And a Happy New Year.
  13. The Tittabawassee — The Tittabawassee is a river and river basin polluted by Dow in its hometown, Midland, Michigan.
  14. Brazos River, Freeport, Texas — A February 1971 headline in the Houston Post read: “Brazos River is Dead.” In 1970 and 1971, Dow’s operation there was sending more than 4.5 billion gallons of wastewater per day into the Brazos and on into the Gulf of Mexico.
  15. Toxic Trespass — Doyle writes: “Dow Chemical has been polluting property and poisoning people for nearly a century, locally and globally — trespassing on workers, consumers, communities, and innocent bystanders — on wildlife and wild places, on the global biota and the global genome. … Dow Chemical must end its toxic trespass.”
  16. Holmesburg Experiments — In January 1981, a Philadelphia Inquirer story revealed that Dow Chemical paid a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist to test dioxin on prisoners at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia. Tests were conducted in 1964 on 70 inmates.
  17. Worker deaths — Dow has a long history of explosions and fires at its facilities, well documented by Doyle. One example, in May 1979: an explosion ripped through Dow Chemical’s Pittsburgh facility, killing two workers and injuring more than 45 others.
  18. Brain tumors — In 1980, investigators found 25 workers with brain tumors at the company’s Freeport, Texas facility — 24 of which were fatal.
  19. Saran Wrap — The thin slice of plastic invaluable to our lives, Saran Wrap was produced by Dow until consumers were looking for Dow products to boycott. Dow decided to get out of consumer products for this reason — it sold off Saran Wrap — and since then the company, now the world’s largest plastics maker, just manufactures the chemical feeds that manufacturers use to make our consumer products.
  20. Bhopal — Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we seek to bring to justice those who trespass against us.

The point about this list is the association of Dow with these historical misdemeanours, not necessarily the fact of them.

Dow has disclaimed any responsibility for the Bhopal incident on the basis that it did not own Union Carbide at the time. Dow has stated:

Twenty years ago on December 3, 1984, one of the most tragic incidents in the history of industry occurred in Bhopal, India. Those of us in industry remember that day well, and the following days, when several thousand people died.

Although Dow never owned nor operated the plant, we — along with the rest of industry — have learned from this tragic event, and we have tried to do all we can to assure that similar incidents never happen again.

To that end, the chemical industry learned and grew as a result of Bhopal — creating Responsible Care with its strengthened focus on process safety standards, emergency preparedness, and community awareness. The industry also has worked with governmental regulators to assure that industry best practices are implemented through regulations for the protection of workers and communities.

While Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal, we have never forgotten the tragic event and have helped to drive global industry performance improvements. This is why Responsible Care was created and why these standards are essential for the protection of our employees and the communities where we live and work. Our pledge and our commitment is the full implementation of Responsible Care everywhere we do business around the world.

The real reputation issue for Dow Chemical  is that many people around the world feel that Dow is responsible as the present owners of Union Carbide. Their determination to avoid this responsibilty without regard to culpability is what is under discussion. Almost all chemical companies have skeletons in the cupboard and the chemical industry is dangerous. The company itself admits that a renewed commitment to safety has saved 10,00 lives since 1996.

Dow must stop looking at itself from within and consider what it must do to shake off the reputation issues of Dow Corning Breast implant problems, Bhopal and perhaps largest of all: Agent Orange.

Dow Chemicals sinking reputation

Dow chemicals, one of world’s largest chemical producing companies seems to be in some disarray following  the renewed controversy over Bhopal. Their brand ideology is built around the combination of science and technology with the “Human Element”included.

Why should Bhopal impact Dow who only bought Union Carbide fifteen years after the disaster at Bhopal? They can rightly claim no involvement with the disaster. The counter argument is that Dow bought everything including the reputational risk of Union Carbide at the same time. Has it come back to bite them. This question is especially pertinent in the light of the Mexico Oil Spill: if Amoco was to buy BP would they also suffer from ongoing reputation risk in the years ahead?

Dow has a number of worries: the damage claims of its subsidiary Dow Corning’s silicone breast implants;  and now the world’s worst ever industrial catastrophe, the Bhopal (India) Gas Tragedy.  It’s enough to worry any CEO, let alone brand director.

Vouching the fact came the recent reputation rating analysis undertaken by Reputation Management For.com which highlighted how the company used to refurbish its image to some repute among its clients and employees. The study also suggested the need for a crisis management with a strong PR to regain the credibility among the masses.

Being  driven by so much anger and frustration of the masses, Dow needs to show responsibility and compensate for all the negligence and communicate to those affected. This will send out a strong message that Dow, is a concerned company. The company even needs to take a strong stand by coming out and presenting its side rather than staying aloof, or else the day is not far when this largest chemical producer would be more known as a killer company, even as their reputation takes a beating.

McDonald recalls cadmium-laced Shrek glasses

Shrek has indeed landed a nasty blow on the brand image of McDonald’s! The famous  fast food chain of McDonald’s is recalling 12 million drinking glasses from the US markets which were launched to promote the cartoon movie “Shrek”  because the painted designs on the glasses contain the toxic metal cadmium.  The cadmium paint might enter the children’s body through their hands and this would put them to risk as it is a  known carcinogen that can cause cancer on prolonged use. Cadmium is generally added to paints to make bright colors, but it is unusual for cadmium containing paints to be used in consumer products like glassware.

In an unusual damage control exercise, McDonald’s has asked customers’ to stop using the 16-ounce glasses with immediate effect. Originally sold at $2 each McDonald’s has started paying customers $3 for every Shrek glass returned. The customers can return the glasses in any of the McDonald’s restaurants and receive the cash on the spot.

To me the whole thing about the McDonald’s glasses is very much a mystery, and why they would be putting cadmium pigments in there,” said Hugh Morrow, a consultant for the International Cadmium Association and a former president of the trade group in North America. “Our position is that cadmium pigments should not be painted on consumer glasses.”

Meanwhile, sales in McDonald’s outlets recorded a sharp rise of 3.4 percent in May, which is attributed to the overwhelming popularity of Shrek themed promotional campaigns  for its Chicken McNuggets and Happy Meals. By acting fast and paying a premium to its customers, McDonald’s is back on its saddle ( well… almost) and has done its best in brand protection . The fact that McDonald’s announced the recall soon after the Consumer Product Safety Commission said that tests showed low levels of Cadmium, even though glasses were not considered toxic as the risk was really low. This act indeed  helped it get back into the good books of the customers. In a way, it is nothing but Reputation Management at its best.

Reputation Ranking- Know Your Online Status

This article focuses on reputation ranking mechanism. When a company or business gets unwanted  attention online, there obviously is something fishy about it. The search engines go naughty; they become biased and start ranking the ‘negatives’ on top. After all it’s attracting more visitors. When users search for you online the unofficial flashes before the official website, thus drowning your goodwill.

Take for instance if some firm wants to hire your service and finds no mention or option about you on the first two pages till they spot you on the 4th page of the search result, imagine the kind of damage it will be have on your company. All the negative stuff has pushed you out off sight. Reputation ranking shows what exactly is your position online.

The ranking system is a process that is concluded by feedback and thorough research and data collection mechanism, and then depicted with pictorial representation followed by analysis and summary. The results cannot be manipulated or altered.  Unlike other ranking systems that sum up the good and bad reports from customers, reputation rating depicts reliable and accurate facts based on that day’s researches. The intention is to build better and objective ratings and develop trust on Reputation Management system.

Reputation rating systems are becoming an essential tool and it is about finding ways to reduce the influence of bad press. Reputation Management For.com believes that every business needs a proactive measure to be on the web and be a consistent performer. And it only goes on to help you understand your business better.

BP’s pay per click campaign to Fix Brand Reputation

BP, caught in the oil slick is trying hard to retain its lost ground by fixing its damaged online reputation by investing heavily in Google adwords that will reroute the searches to the BP’s initiatives to manage the oil spill rather than the loss and environmental disaster caused by the spill as such! In an attempt to put back the derailed brand reputation of BP after the Gulf oil spill, BP has shelled out a fortune in its pay per click campaign by bidding on keywords in Google, Yahoo and Bing to filter search engine users and to guide them to their sites instead of letting them stray into other sites, where the users might  find the horrible effects and natural disaster caused by the oil spill.

The keywords like oils spills and Gulf oil spill are some of the many queries BP is currently bidding on. It’s been suggested that BP is spending upwards of $10,000 a day to maintain the top spots. This brand protection move is a smart tactic to minimise the damages caused by the gulf oil spill  and to retain its customer base.  The present Google search come up with well orchestrated results like info about Gulf Mexico spill and learn more about how BP is helping instead of  the oil spill as such!

However, the mood of social network users like twitter and face book has reached  the levels of accusations where people have  rated the negligence of BP as nothing short of   “Accidental terrorism”, and there has been many angry reactions including  the launch of the Top Kill initiative, and the call to boycott BP. Thus  at the end of the day, the customers wont be ready to buy the story if BP is not doing enough to fix the problem and to pay damages for the clean up operations.

Suggested posts for further reading

British Airways Needs To Fasten its Reputation

The long standing tussle between British Airways’ and the trade union Unite’s seems to be a never ending affair with no sign of breakthrough. BA’s Chief Executive, Willie Walsh, is been criticized for his tough stance on cabin crew travel issue and for his relentless refusal to allow peace a chance. Though he claims the strike action by cabin crew is “a failure”. On the other hand Unite Union Chief, is reported to have flown out of UK with his family for vacation at this hour of crisis. So all this drama gives this  general feeling of a unholy nexus between the BA and Unite chief.

Traveling by BA is skeptical and may effect your itinerary or even expect a particular flight is canceled. Passengers are even cautioned to counter-check refund and re-booking options and also advised to look at other flights.

As this drama continues the brand BA has taken a huge beating besides losing customer’s faith. Though they announced about having proper back-ups in place and will operate additional flights to keep up with the demand, but, will this help BA as a company that is concerned about its employee and customers.

The U K’s flagship carrier, once the pride of UK had set a standard for quality, style and service. They even claimed to be “The World’s Favorite Airline”. Let’s face it; BA is undergoing a crisis management so they should now concentrate on how to bring back that old faith the quality, integrity and operation.

Reputation Management For.com finds Google search queries suggest “BA Strike” as first. Better late than never they will need to do some brainstorming to get out-off troubled waters to salvage their reputation both online and offline, after all every second passenger hits the Internet to see whats cooking

Another Day, Another Car Recall… How very 2010!

It seems like every other car manufacturer is discovering new flaws in their vehicles this year. There is a strange coincidence to it, almost, dare I say it, as though they have all known this all along but only now is it okay for the car companies to admit to the problems.

Latest to recall vehicles is Chrysler with the recall of 600,000 jeeps and minivans throughout North America. Obviously their owners will notice, but will the rest of us? If this had been 2008, it would have taken as evidence of US manufacturing failure, but mid 2010 it hardly warrants a shrug after all the prestigious Japanese marques have undertaken even more serious recalls. Once upon a time safety was a given, but now we are waking up in a world where even cars behave like Windows OS.

How badly will the Chrysler reputation be damaged? Very little most likely as we all have other reputations to trash such as BP or President Obama. There is a certain fatique for car recalls. It goes to show that timing is everything when it comes to reputation fallout from product failure. By holding on six months, Chrysler has ensured that few will really notice their failings.

Helen Thomas’s Jewish Slight.

89 year old Helen Thomas “was” the doyen of White House correspondents after reporting on every president since Eisenhower. No longer after she allowed her Lebanese ancestry to get the better of her and she criticised Jews in Israel. Now critics from every political persuasion are lining up to call for her resignation; cast her out.

Helen Thomas’ mistake, if that is the right way to term it, was to conflate judaism with Israel and thereby seemingly criticise jewishness when she may have intended Israel. Indeed criticism of Israel is so frequently viewed as anti-semiticism that few in the USA have the nerve to try it. Those that do, such as Noam Chomsky are fearless in their logic and rarely attack Israel from an emotional perspective as Helen Thomas did.

Helen Thomas has Lebanese ancestors and few in Europe would be surprised that she felt such strong feelings about Israel. Many palestinians and Lebanese feel that they are victims of a pogrom all of their own and feel a burning resentment at their treatment at the hands of the Israeli State.

What should Helen Thomas do now? Step back or restate? I sense that if she steps back she will lose her reputation forever so she might be wiser to take the courageous line and restate and clarify her position concerning Israel and judaism. In managing reputation you always have two choices: the quick and easy or the long and hard. Which she will choose remains to be seen.

Air India flying low

Battling with a damaged reputation and internal unrest!

The national carrier of India, “Air India” seems to be in a complete disarray after a series of recent incidents jolting the reputation of the nation’s oldest airlines. Even before Air India could resurrect its image from the tragic crash in Mangalore which killed 158 passengers, another blow came with a strike called by Air India employees unions.

The internal unrest among the employees and management is due to faliure of the management to follow through on its latest verbal agreement to pay the lowest paid employees by July 3. The lowest paid unionized employees make less than $100 a week. Employees were angered with their pay being delayed at a time when the airline continued to buy new planes. This sorry state highlights the distorted image of the national carrier being plagued by chronic indiscipline. They lost credibility and with the mounting pressure to stay ahead in the race, Air India seems to have lost its track. This series of crisis exposes Air India’s inability to deal with crisis management. Here is what Air India’s spokesperson had to say to CNN IBN :

“We will not tolerate any strike. Striking employees will be subject to loss of wages and productive incentives.”

Left with a cumulative loss of about Rs 8000 crore, a battered reputation, and unsatisfied employees and customers, the international carrier will have a hard time to regain its respect. Absence of a solid PR is something they need to bring in to salvage their reputation. With competition and competitors looming high, Reputation Management For.com does not think Air India can afford to take this luxury to give PR a miss. High time they mend and sort the crisis before its too late to fasten their seat belts.

BP = Beyond Petroleum = Big Pollution

Reputation damage does not come much bigger than BP’s fall from grace estimated at £25 billion on the stockmarket. This is the balance of the forty billion drop minus the fifteen billion costs of clear up in the USA.

Few companies spend much time managing reputation in a strategic way. we are aware of none that actually sit down and talk about reputation at the level of the CEO or strategy director until the damage has been done. This year Goldman Sachs acknowledged that criticism of it’s behaviour over the past couple of years has done great repetitional damage.

The Gulf of Mexico spill is perhaps a one off but all companies face potential reputational damage in much more modest ways which few consider. Companies via their PR companies fetishise crisis management (first aid) at the expense of crisis avoidance or reputation management (health protection). They look to respond at the expense of avoiding in the first place. This approach puts reputation management in the hands of marketing directors and not strategy directors; marketing directors who typically worship brand management and advertising: they love to take and not listen.

In the case of BP how much listening did they do to internal voices questioning safety and operational processes? Large organisations rarely welcome dissonant voices however much claim to be inclusive. All large companies need to nurture whistle blowing and the eccentric voice. Maverick is a key reputation management asset!

Exogenous events do happen, but they are rare. The more we hear about the events and circumstances of the oil spill, the more it is becoming clear that safety was an insufficient priority and that the dangers and impact of a blow-out had been minimised. As the cliche goes… This was an accident waiting to happen.

The past few years have demonstrated that the single largest risk shareholders face is the backlash from reputation damage. Company executives need to recognize the fact.