Kraft, Mars, Nestle, Hershey - think before you buy that Valentine

The folks at GreenAmerica.org are determined to to promote green and Fair Trade business practices and end corporate abuse -- to make you aware before you buy chocolate and without realizing you might be supporting a company that exploits children, for instance.
♥ You can visit their website, or check out the chart (below) to compare the performance of brands you may or may not know. Of course, as chocolate buying peaks over the next few days...

"More than 35 million heart-shaped boxes of chocolate will be sold on February 14th, adding to the total 58 million pounds of chocolate to will be sold during the week of the most romantic holiday of the year.

Consumers are expected to purchase more than $345 million on chocolate treats for their beloveds."

Brigid Darragh
Green Chip Stocks
Friday, 11 Feb 2011

...it helps to understand just what the different certifications mean, and to do more than merely making deliberate choices. You can also spread the word, and communicate directly with companies such as Hershey to let them know you consider their business practices before you make your purchases.

"...every time a consumer purchases non-Fair Trade chocolate, they are putting money in the pockets of people who run a system based largely on forced child labor.

The U.S. State Department estimates more than 15,000 child slaves work on plantations in the Ivory Coast. Children are taken from their homes by traffickers for the very purpose of supporting the country's largest export crop: cocoa."

Brigid Darragh
Green Chip Stocks
Friday, 11 Feb 2011

Here are some basic definitions, courtesy of GreenAmerica.org:

Organic certification does not include labor rights standards. The program does not address wages, prices to producers, or management of cooperatives. Organic means 100% of the ingredients of a product be certified organic to earn the label.

Fair Trade prohibits forced labor, child labor, and discrimination, and protects freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. Fair Trade certified farmers are guaranteed a "floor price" for their cocoa beans, as well as a social premium. Fair Trade producers are required to form democratic cooperatives.

The IMO Fair for Life certification guarantees that human rights are protected at all stages of production, with a strong focus on hired laborers, as they are often the most marginalized in the supply chain. Fair for Life guarantees that smallholder farmers receive fair payment and that workers enjoy good and fair working conditions. The Fair for Life system prevents forced and child labor and also includes detailed environmental criteria. Fair For Life certified products must use Fair Trade ingredients if available, and regardless, 50% of all ingredients must be Fair Trade in order for a product to bear the seal.

The Rainforest Alliance (RA) standards prohibit the use of forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. The right to organize on RA-certified farms is not a critical criteria. RA does not require buyers to pay a specific minimum floor price for cocoa beans. Only 30% of the primary ingredient needs to be certified in order to earn an RA label.

And what about Nestle's UTZ Certification? UTZ was founded by Guatemalan coffee producers and the Ahold Coffee Company in 1997 and launched a cocoa plan 10 years later; it prohibits forced labor, however no organizations with a specific expertise in labor rights are included on the Board of Directors. So, while it protects the right to organize and bargain collectively, the price is solely based on negotiations between the buyers and farmers. Paying the legal minimum wage is required only after the first year of certification.

Now, what label is on your chocolate? ♥

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

CAA Taking A Bath On Sports Division? - Buying Matt Leinart, Tom Condon, and IMG

Someone -- perhaps Leigh Steinberg -- is reading this with glee. But if Hollywood Reporter Nikki Finke's any indication,
Creative Artists Agency , the super-firm of talent agents started by Ron Meyer and Mike Ovitz in 1975, and recently the epicenter of Hollywood's move into athletic talent mining starting with players like Arizona Cardinals QB Matt Leinart, may be losing money in its sports division.

To understand, read this post from Nikki's blog:

If CAA agents this week are looking inconsolable, it's because they now have to give up flying first class. (Those conversations you're trying to overhear at lunch in Century City are the CAA tenpercenters kvetching about it.) So what happened? My sources tell me that CAA called a big all-agents meeting and read the riot act to its spendthrift tenpercenters. To cut expenses by a whopping 20%. To start flying just business class instead of first class. And to take to heart this warning: If you want to get paid, then get your clients jobs.

I hear the motion picture agents are the most upset about the new edicts because they live the high life more and so got hit harder. Look, I've been saying this for a while now: CAA can't keep spending like drunken sailors without having cash flow issues: buying a bevy of agents from other shops and wooing clients by the hundreds, and moving into swank new headquarters while still paying rent back at the I.M. Pei building, and starting a money pit of a sports division where most of the endorsement deal money will be heading back to IMG for years, etc. Now CAA is having the same woes every other agency in town has been having: for instance, William Morris last year asked its departments to slash spending by 20%. What's next? Richard Lovett on Avenue Of The Stars with a metal detector looking for loose change and lost jewelry?



If it's true that CAA's gotten into a deal where it's giving most of its' cash from sponsorship deals back to IMG, then it's officially taking a bath in its sports division. Everyone in the sports business knows its the sponsorship deals that drive the industry, and this is especially true for NFL agents, which are limited to 3 percent takes of an athlete's contract.

By contrast, CAA comes from the world of the 20 percent deal, where they can get as much as that for an actor or actress. So they're giving up 17 percent of a deal, plus a big chunk of endorsement money? Wow. All that plus the fact that CAA and the other Hollywood agencies aren't savvy enough in new media to promote their talents to such an extent they make up for this. One firm I will not name has an extensive website, but you can't find it on Google! (They need to use SBS-ON!)

At first, I thought CAA's foray into sports would restructure the industry and cause a shakeout of some of the small-time -- at least in behavior -- agents. But given the appearance of their business model, I remain skeptical. It's now logical to me why IMG would give up its NFL operation to CAA without the appearance of a fight; they're getting paid! Moreover, it seems everyone, from Leigh Steinberg to Matt Leinart's trainer Steve Clarkson of Air 7 (which has a better website now), to IMG, and Tom Condon (who was lured from IMG to CAA) has been paid by CAA just so it could leap -- head first -- into the sports business without a battle.

In other words, CAA really did create a money pit!

Let's give it five years, and then review. Unless CAA starts making a ton of sports movies with Matt Leinart and Paris Hilton as the stars, they may see the NFL and sports as a waste of money. It's not, really. It's just that they don't really understand what they've gotten themselves into.