All Your Creme Eggs Are Belong To Us
So, it's official. Kraft now own Cadbury. In a merger partially paid for by the British taxpayer (as RBS has provided some of the funding for Kraft - although this Lib-Dem Voice article is quite thought-provoking on the matter).
I suppose I have a tendency to be a bit left-wing and anti-capitalist in such cases (I was brought up in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, after all), but I'm trying to think about this objectively.
First of all, foreign ownership of a company per se is not necessarily a bad thing (well... ). An example quoted on the news was how Asda have thrived under Wal-Mart. However, that's a fundamentally different business model; while both involve retail, only one involves actual manufacturing. Asda have grown, but then it's hard to sell stuff to people who don't live near your store; therefore, in order to grow your business, you need more stores, and more people to staff them. And I must admit that I'm happier with a JLR under Tata control than if it were still owned by Ford...
You see, despite all Kraft's warm words (directly from The Sun, of all places) they are apparently refusing all other interview requests from our local media. This - or a webcast from Kraft's website - seems to be their preferred way of communicating with people. And I find that very... off. OK, I'm sure they must be inundated with requests for interviews, soundbites, and so on, but they don't seem to want to engage directly with the very people most affected by this decision. I find that very strange, and somewhat suspicious.
Mind you, Kraft's UK arm has already contacted a councillor for Bournville with reassurances... although they spelled it wrong.
The other thing which is no doubt uppermost in Cadbury worker's minds is that they're not the first British chocolate maker Kraft have bought.
Kraft bought Terry's in 1993 - and by 2005, their plant in York was completely closed, their brands whittled down and production of what was left moved to Eastern Europe. (This article from the Birmingham Post sums up the sense of betrayal, as does this from the Yorkshire Post.) For indeed, Kraft had promised to look after Terry's - just as it is promising to do with Cadbury.
The other thing that is concerning me somewhat is the difference in corporate philosophy. Cadbury was founded on Quaker principles; Bournville was built by the Cadbury family to look after their workers. Even today, Cadbury looks after its workers, and has recently made its Dairy Milk chocolate fair trade. I can't help but think that Kraft isn't going to give a monkeys about any of that. I suspect pure profit will be the driver for all decisions now, not necessarily looking after or respecting the workforce. Certainly, Terry's themselves were founded on similar principles... and look what happened there. Kraft can't really blame the Bournville workforce for not welcoming them with open arms, given their track record.
To be honest, I think that's the saddest thing. That in this materialist, capitalist society, pure profit and greed are valued way above having a positive impact on people's lives, and above their welfare. I'm under no illusions that if Cadbury weren't a profitable business, it would've long gone, but I'm concerned that the search for more money by their new owners will mean Cadbury will go the way of Terry's before it.
After all, Kraft now has a sizeable debt to service, and veteran investor (and Kraft shareholder) Warren Buffett was not impressed at Kraft's actions. US Credit Agency Standard & Poor downgraded Kraft's credit rating as a result of the takeover. That's not a good omen.
Certainly, Lord Mandelson's meeting with Kraft chief executive Irene Rosenfeld was hardly a roaring success. (I did like Sandi Toksvig's comment on the news that Mandelson said he was powerless to act: "What does he mean, powerless? Has the book of spells gone back to the library?") Then again, my own opinion of Lord Mandelson, or his usefulness as Business Secretary or whatever he's supposed to be, is not really repeatable.
It's quite telling that three of Cadbury's executives have resigned this week (although they'll be handsomely paid off...)
Who cares about morality when you can just throw money at something - even if it's money you don't have? Is it fair that our system allows a company to be taken over, effectively against its will, just because its suitor has a big sack full of borrowed cash? How is that even right? (I could make an analogy, but... I don't think I will...) Is it right that much as we'd like to think otherwise, in this economy money will always win over people?
*sigh*
All that's left is to try to be an ethical consumer. And that sounds suspiciously liable to be greenwashed.
I'm not cynical. I've just been happy-slapped by reality.
I suppose I have a tendency to be a bit left-wing and anti-capitalist in such cases (I was brought up in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, after all), but I'm trying to think about this objectively.
First of all, foreign ownership of a company per se is not necessarily a bad thing (well... ). An example quoted on the news was how Asda have thrived under Wal-Mart. However, that's a fundamentally different business model; while both involve retail, only one involves actual manufacturing. Asda have grown, but then it's hard to sell stuff to people who don't live near your store; therefore, in order to grow your business, you need more stores, and more people to staff them. And I must admit that I'm happier with a JLR under Tata control than if it were still owned by Ford...
You see, despite all Kraft's warm words (directly from The Sun, of all places) they are apparently refusing all other interview requests from our local media. This - or a webcast from Kraft's website - seems to be their preferred way of communicating with people. And I find that very... off. OK, I'm sure they must be inundated with requests for interviews, soundbites, and so on, but they don't seem to want to engage directly with the very people most affected by this decision. I find that very strange, and somewhat suspicious.
Mind you, Kraft's UK arm has already contacted a councillor for Bournville with reassurances... although they spelled it wrong.
The other thing which is no doubt uppermost in Cadbury worker's minds is that they're not the first British chocolate maker Kraft have bought.
Kraft bought Terry's in 1993 - and by 2005, their plant in York was completely closed, their brands whittled down and production of what was left moved to Eastern Europe. (This article from the Birmingham Post sums up the sense of betrayal, as does this from the Yorkshire Post.) For indeed, Kraft had promised to look after Terry's - just as it is promising to do with Cadbury.
The other thing that is concerning me somewhat is the difference in corporate philosophy. Cadbury was founded on Quaker principles; Bournville was built by the Cadbury family to look after their workers. Even today, Cadbury looks after its workers, and has recently made its Dairy Milk chocolate fair trade. I can't help but think that Kraft isn't going to give a monkeys about any of that. I suspect pure profit will be the driver for all decisions now, not necessarily looking after or respecting the workforce. Certainly, Terry's themselves were founded on similar principles... and look what happened there. Kraft can't really blame the Bournville workforce for not welcoming them with open arms, given their track record.
To be honest, I think that's the saddest thing. That in this materialist, capitalist society, pure profit and greed are valued way above having a positive impact on people's lives, and above their welfare. I'm under no illusions that if Cadbury weren't a profitable business, it would've long gone, but I'm concerned that the search for more money by their new owners will mean Cadbury will go the way of Terry's before it.
After all, Kraft now has a sizeable debt to service, and veteran investor (and Kraft shareholder) Warren Buffett was not impressed at Kraft's actions. US Credit Agency Standard & Poor downgraded Kraft's credit rating as a result of the takeover. That's not a good omen.
Certainly, Lord Mandelson's meeting with Kraft chief executive Irene Rosenfeld was hardly a roaring success. (I did like Sandi Toksvig's comment on the news that Mandelson said he was powerless to act: "What does he mean, powerless? Has the book of spells gone back to the library?") Then again, my own opinion of Lord Mandelson, or his usefulness as Business Secretary or whatever he's supposed to be, is not really repeatable.
It's quite telling that three of Cadbury's executives have resigned this week (although they'll be handsomely paid off...)
Who cares about morality when you can just throw money at something - even if it's money you don't have? Is it fair that our system allows a company to be taken over, effectively against its will, just because its suitor has a big sack full of borrowed cash? How is that even right? (I could make an analogy, but... I don't think I will...) Is it right that much as we'd like to think otherwise, in this economy money will always win over people?
*sigh*
All that's left is to try to be an ethical consumer. And that sounds suspiciously liable to be greenwashed.
I'm not cynical. I've just been happy-slapped by reality.