Mattel is now going to avoid “controversial” sources of wood fiber for use in the packaging of their products, and among those sources will be Asia Pulp & Paper. What does that mean? Let me explain.
Starting this past June, Greenpeace targeted Mattel in a corporate campaign to force the toy maker to cease sourcing its product packaging from Asia Pulp & Paper, an Indonesian based supplier in the packaging industry. Greenpeace has, for years, accused AP&P of contributing to climate change because Greenpeace says AP&P follows improper forestry procedures. Greenpeace has also applied pressure, via negative publicity campaigns, against other multinational consumer products companies (among them Nestle, about which I wrote on this blog) in an effort to force them to cease doing business with AP&P. In many of these cases, Greenpeace has succeeded.
Greenpeace says that AP&P is a “bad actor” relative to sustainability. But yet, Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental consulting company headed by Dr. Patrick Moore who was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, commends AP&P for its sustainability procedures which Greenspirit has assessed via intensive analysis.
Who are we to believe?
As I’ve said on this blog several times, I don’t have the scientific training or the background to know which party is correct about AP&P. Maybe AP&P is a worthy supplier and maybe they aren’t. I don’t know. I don’t know because I haven’t done a scientific due diligence on that company. But then apparently neither has Mattel. Mattel in a L.A. Times article said that their new sustainability policy “directs our printers to not contract with any controversial sources.” That same L.A. Times article says that Mattel characterizes AP&P as “a controversial source.”
The point I want to make in this post is that Mattel has thrown out a supplier based on the controversy created around the supplier, rather than based on their own rational and scientific assessment of that supplier. Instead, they have apparently relied solely on the assessment of Greenpeace, which has been shown previously to have questionable research methodology.
If this sort of vendor selection criteria becomes standard in business, what does that say for the viability of any supply company, innocent or guilty, that falls into the sights of Greenpeace or another irregular competitor?
UPDATE: October 24, 2011 – I was encouraged to see today that Mattel has regained some common sense and modified their vendor selection procedure which is based upon the avoidance of controversial sources. In a video released on its Web site, Mattel states that it will seek to avoid controversial sources by requiring vendors to document from where there fibers comes and to confirm that the fiber is sourced in a sustainable manner. (This statement occurs at about 1:05 on the video.)
At least in this way, the vendor has a chance to defend themselves against accusations and Mattel is not abdicating their responsibility for vendor selection to the claims of activist organizations. However, as this change now shifts power back to Mattel and its vendors, I wonder what the reaction of Greenpeace and other activist organizations will be?
