Dissection of Corporate Responsibility

My professor e-mailed me an interesting article about the controversy surrounding the Beijing 2008 Olympics and sponsorships responsibilities. I would like to dissect the words of the responses from the largest Olympic sponsors because I have questions for these corporate sponsors.

Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Anhueser-Busch were asked by Minky Worden, media director of Human Rights Watch and author of the forthcoming “China’s Great Leap: The Beijing Games and Olympian Human Rights Challenges,” about their responsibilities as an Olympic sponsor.

They had to say the following:

Coca-Cola: “It’s not the role of our company to directly involve ourselves in the internal policy decisions of sovereign nations. We do believe we can have a positive impact by our continued sponsorship of the games.”

Kailyn questions, What do you mean Coca-Cola when you say you will have a “positive impact by…continued sponsorship of the games?” Do you mean continued sponsorship would have a positive impact on an increase in market share and profits for your oh-so-large corporation?

McDonald’s: “We continue to feel strongly that the only real progress that can be made in Darfur is at the United Nations and government levels.”

Kailyn thinks, “real progress” needs to happen. But real progress is not happening in Darfur. China has the largest influence in Sudan than any other nation at the current time. McDonald’s is no real happy meal. Inside each happy meal you can find a corporation following the pack and not supporting basic human rights for an increase in profits. Inside each happy meal lies children, mothers, fathers and families suffering because only government officials are able to do something?

Finally, Anheuser-Busch: “The situation in Darfur is abhorrent, and we support efforts to bring awareness to this crisis in order to increase diplomatic discussions between governments within the United Nations. We have expressed our position on this topic with the International Olympic Committee.”

Kailyn astonishingly thinks: The words “we support efforts to bring awareness to this crisis” are the fundamentals of a latent corporation doing nothing to show how they support. Actions speak louder than words Anheuser-Busch. What are going to do about it?

Minkey Worden, Human Rights Watch, asked the top 12 Olympic sponsors about their reactions to China’s involvement in Sudan. Worden said that all 12 have not changed or created any new marketing plans for their sponsorship.

Sponsors need to practice corporate responsibility and issue statements regarding their involvement in the Beijing Olympics. Creating new strategies to address the importance of human rights and implementing new marketing concepts surrounding human rights is the least these sponsors can do.

Sponsors should issue financial support to Darfur groups. These corporations can say they support peace efforts in Darfur and they can claim to support human rights, but they must act upon this thinking and act upon their own words.

Take a look at this article about sponsorships responses: adage.com/article?article_id=125143

I hope you are as astonished as I am.

Image from Coca-Cola Company

Spielberg Splits From His Role

China is feeling the wrath right-about-now. On Tuesday, Feb. 12, Steven Spielberg announced he would not be involved with the Beijing 2008 Olympics due to China’s influence in Sudan and its non-responsiveness to the suffering in Darfur.

Spielberg was planned to be the art director for the opening-and-closing ceremonies of the Olympics.

Spielberg said he could not consciously invlove himself in the Beijing Olympics because China has not done enough to help end the crisis in Darfur.

“At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on the Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur,” Spielberg said in his statement.

“Sudan’s government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these on-going crimes, but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more.”

And this is what President Bush had to say about it:

“That’s up to him. I’m going to the Olympics. I view the Olympics as a sporting event,” Bush said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. television.

While Bush makes his stand on his two feet, and that’s about all, Spielberg has made a humanitarian decision. He has put aside money and fame for the support of human lives.

When China discovered Spielberg’s pull-out on the Olympics, Chinese government officials denied that Spielberg’s decision had ties to Sudan. China also believes its just a sporting event and will continue to buy two-thirds of Sudan’s oil and supply the Khartoum government with military weapons.

Spielberg joins Mia Farrow, actress, and other activist groups to pressure the Chinese government to use its influence and end the continuing suffering in Sudan.

“China’s economic, military and diplomatic ties to the government of Sudan continue to provide it with the opportunity and obligation to press for change,” Spielberg said.

With Spielberg’s position and other rights groups pressuring China, I am just wondering if its a matter of time. Or will the suffering continue in the hands of politics.

My friend actually sent me an article on Spielberg bailing on the Olympics. Check it out at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7242016.stm