Nannying corporates, right or wrong?

vivatifosi

We've debated the degree to which the state should involve itself in people's lives on many previous occasions. But what about corporates? Is the role of a corporation to maximise profit for shareholders, or at times to take an ethical stance, even if it costs sales?

I've just read that supermarket Morrison's is to stop selling energy drinks such as Red Bull and Monster to under 16s following concerns that the amount of caffeine being taken on board by children:

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/23/morrisons-bans-children-from-buying-red-bull-and-monster-energy-drinks-4198450/

Are they right to restrict access to a legal product? And what about lads mags, are supermarkets or newsagents justified in withdrawing these from sale?

I thought it was an interesting time to debate these issues in the context of the role of corporates on the economy, following the on going demise of that arbiter of the moral compass in business, the CoOp.

My own view is that I don't mind corporations having an ethical stance and it can be part of a differentiation strategy. However I'm not a 15 year old cramming for exams. When I was in that situation I could and did perfectly legally buy Pro Plus. I do also believe that if a firm sets itself up as having squeaky clean credentials as a means of differentiation, then it really needs to ensure it lives up to that.

So within the context of the role of the corporation in the economy, do you think Morrison's is right or wrong? How much should a for-profit organisation involve itself? I'm not talking about CSR in the broad sense here, such as sponsoring local charities, but about whether firms should unilaterally restrict access to legal products.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

We've debated the degree to which the state should involve itself in people's lives on many previous occasions. But what about corporates? Is the role of a corporation to maximise profit for shareholders, or at times to take an ethical stance, even if it costs sales?

I've just read that supermarket Morrison's is to stop selling energy drinks such as Red Bull and Monster to under 16s following concerns that the amount of caffeine being taken on board by children:

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/23/morrisons-bans-children-from-buying-red-bull-and-monster-energy-drinks-4198450/

Are they right to restrict access to a legal product? And what about lads mags, are supermarkets or newsagents justified in withdrawing these from sale?

I thought it was an interesting time to debate these issues in the context of the role of corporates on the economy, following the on going demise of that arbiter of the moral compass in business, the CoOp.

My own view is that I don't mind corporations having an ethical stance and it can be part of a differentiation strategy. However I'm not a 15 year old cramming for exams. When I was in that situation I could and did perfectly legally buy Pro Plus. I do also believe that if a firm sets itself up as having squeaky clean credentials as a means of differentiation, then it really needs to ensure it lives up to that.

So within the context of the role of the corporation in the economy, do you think Morrison's is right or wrong? How much should a for-profit organisation involve itself? I'm not talking about CSR in the broad sense here, such as sponsoring local charities, but about whether firms should unilaterally restrict access to legal products.

I would imagine that Morrison's sells a lot more product to parents than to teens. Perhaps they feel that doing something like this will result in a greater increase in sales to parents than it will cost in sales to teens.

Loughton_Monkey

It is not, in my opinion, nannying businesses, but more a symptom of today's complete Nanny Society which has been brought on by successive governments, ably assisted by the BBC.

Businesses have long since recognised the huge cost of having to defend themselves from "blame" for making people fat, selling substances to children, selling cheap alcohol, or supplying soft !!!!!!. They get blame for buying what we want at the right price [e.g. Spanish tomamtoes] rather than the rather miserable, inconsistent, 'local produce' that would cost double and be out of stock 7 days out of 10 due to random supply....

Hence their PR departments are forced to invest a bit in avoidance of this damage before it happens, and also in spouting to the media how "responsible" they are - thus justifying another penny on the prices...

Wrapping children up in cotton wool eventually turns them into far more vulnerable teenagers and adults, less able to cope with the vagueries, trial and tribulations of adult life.

Treating any large bunch of adults as children, in turn, eventually turns them into children, fully expecting the state to 'be there' and bail them out of any little 'issue' they have.

When a 'yoof' who should know better crawls out of the nightclub at 3:00 a.m., spews in the gutter, punches a couple of bystanders and then verbally and physically abuses local plod, one expects the state to deal with this by due process of perfectly adequate existing laws. If necessary, raising penalties to the point that the population 'learns' that this is not a good idea. Drink Driving is perhaps a good model of this.

But any government who tries to deal with it by seemingly "accepting" such behaviour, but blaming supermarkets and drink companies for supplying the stuff - which 99% of people do not abuse - is totally crazy. Trying to restrict supply costs an awful lot more, and the public just don't learn anyway....

One tends to look at the Conservatives to diminish the Nanny State. But I'm afraid that the likes of Cameron are the biggest culprits. It is also giving the muppets in UKIP extra ammunition over and above the European issue.

PS Warning: This post contains flash photography....

wotsthat

vivatifosi wrote: »

So within the context of the role of the corporation in the economy, do you think Morrison's is right or wrong? How much should a for-profit organisation involve itself? I'm not talking about CSR in the broad sense here, such as sponsoring local charities, but about whether firms should unilaterally restrict access to legal products.

I don't think they're either right or wrong. They're making a decision based on a marketing strategy.

Morrisons demographic these days is towards the older end of the spectrum. I'd bet that their sales of these drinks is the lowest compared to competition. So for very little cost they develop their 'ethics' and put pressure on the others for who banning these drinks would be a much bigger deal (especially those with a more developed convenience offering). They may as well claim they don't sell caviar because of their concern for sturgeon.

If they'd stopped selling cigarettes because they wanted to ensure that not a single cigarette smoked by a child came from their stores I'd be looking at his differently.

Thrugelmir

Red Bull is marketed very astutely, F1, Powerboat racing, Sking, Cliff Diving etc. Yet the drinks contents isn't exactly healthy. There's no harm in a business taking a particular stance. Ebay is a business whose ethics outlaw the sale of certain items on the site.

Generali

I think the difference between a company taking a stance like this and a Government doing so is I can go shop somewhere else. Hell, I can even start up a competitor company.

Kennyboy66

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It is not, in my opinion, nannying businesses, but more a symptom of today's complete Nanny Society which has been brought on by successive governments, ably assisted by the BBC.

I doubt it Lever Brothers, Cadbury or Titus Salt were that influenced by governments.

Kennyboy66

wotsthat wrote: »

Morrisons demographic these days is towards the older end of the spectrum. I'd bet that their sales of these drinks is the lowest compared to competition. So for very little cost they develop their 'ethics' and put pressure on the others for who banning these drinks would be a much bigger deal (especially those with a more developed convenience offering). They may as well claim they don't sell caviar because of their concern for sturgeon.

If they'd stopped selling cigarettes because they wanted to ensure that not a single cigarette smoked by a child came from their stores I'd be looking at his differently.

I'd bet their sales per store to under 16's of Red Bull would be almost identical to the other major supermarkets.

macaque_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

We've debated the degree to which the state should involve itself in people's lives on many previous occasions. But what about corporates? Is the role of a corporation to maximise profit for shareholders, or at times to take an ethical stance, even if it costs sales?

I've just read that supermarket Morrison's is to stop selling energy drinks such as Red Bull and Monster to under 16s following concerns that the amount of caffeine being taken on board by children:

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/23/morrisons-bans-children-from-buying-red-bull-and-monster-energy-drinks-4198450/

Are they right to restrict access to a legal product? And what about lads mags, are supermarkets or newsagents justified in withdrawing these from sale?

I thought it was an interesting time to debate these issues in the context of the role of corporates on the economy, following the on going demise of that arbiter of the moral compass in business, the CoOp.

My own view is that I don't mind corporations having an ethical stance and it can be part of a differentiation strategy. However I'm not a 15 year old cramming for exams. When I was in that situation I could and did perfectly legally buy Pro Plus. I do also believe that if a firm sets itself up as having squeaky clean credentials as a means of differentiation, then it really needs to ensure it lives up to that.

So within the context of the role of the corporation in the economy, do you think Morrison's is right or wrong? How much should a for-profit organisation involve itself? I'm not talking about CSR in the broad sense here, such as sponsoring local charities, but about whether firms should unilaterally restrict access to legal products.

I don't see you as well placed to comment on nannying. By that I mean there are places to give advice on the subject of potentially dangerous moles but a debating forum on housing is not it. I have a particular issue in this area and the scars to prove it. I come on to this forum for a bit of diversion. I do not welcome some do gooder reminding me of the subject daily.

wotsthat

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

I'd bet their sales per store to under 16's of Red Bull would be almost identical to the other major supermarkets.

Probably not. Kids don't do their shopping in Morrisons.

They'll be disproportionately sold in those with convenience offerings i.e. Tesco Express on their way to and from school.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Probably not. Kids don't do their shopping in Morrisons.

They'll be disproportionately sold in those with convenience offerings i.e. Tesco Express on their way to and from school.

Hence why they are called convinience stores and not supermarkets.

So as were competing for Pedant of the week award....I'm with Kenny I'd bet morrisons would have the same sort of percentage as other supermarkets.