The Business Ethics Blog

As readers from the world of healthcare likely already know, it’s not always seen as an uncontroversially good thing when a company with deep pockets gets involved in (i.e., provides funding for) a health-oriented project or campaign.

Check this story, from The Guardian: Concern over cancer group’s link to drug firm

A pan-European cancer campaign was under intense scrutiny last night over the scale of involvement of the world’s leading maker of cancer drugs.
Cancer United, which is due to be launched with a fanfare in Brussels tomorrow, is being presented as a pioneering effort by a coalition of doctors, nurses and patients to push for equal access to cancer care across the EU. However, the campaign is being entirely funded by Roche, the maker of Herceptin and Avastin. A senior company executive sits on the board. The company’s PR firm Weber Shandwick is the secretariat and has been heavily promoting it to clinicians and journalists. And the principal study on which it is based has been hotly contested – and was also funded by Roche.

So the worry, here, is that Roche, a large pharmaceutical company, may use the Cancer United campaign as a way of advancing its own interests, rather than advancing the interests of cancer patients. Indeed, since one of the goals of the campaign is to effect public policy, the real worry is that Roche is using Cancer United as a front for attempts to change public policy in a way that promotes corporate interests.

Is that a fair worry? The story quotes Professor John Smyth of Edinburgh University (who wrote the foreward to the aforementioned report)…

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about having the support of industry. I wish people would stop seeing them as the enemy.

Unfortunately, this is absolutely right and absolutely misses the point. The point is not whether industry is the enemy. Clearly they’re not. Industry has an essential role to play. The point is that industry’s motives are their own, and they differ from the motives of cancer patients, cancer researchers, and makers of public policy.

I don’t often quote myself, but this bit from an article I wrote in 2004 sort of sums it up:

…we want the things that corporations can produce. But it is important to note that the way corporations serve the public good is by seeking profit; and the route to profit is to produce a valuable commodity (i.e., something individuals, qua consumers, want). This insight of Adam Smith’s is an important one, and it works as a generalization about the nature of a market economy (Smith 1776). But the significance of this insight, for our purposes here, is to be found in the fact that for corporations, the public good is only a contingent effect, not a first-order goal. For them, contributing to the public good is an aspiration (perhaps) and also a (hopefully frequent) side-effect of their profit-seeking behaviour. But it’s not guaranteed. So, we as citizens are right to be wary of corporations….

So no, the point is not that industry is “the enemy.” (Well, some people think it’s the enemy, but that’s silly.) The real point is that corporate interests — even the interests of well-meaning corporations full of kind-hearted people — are not the same as the interests of any other relevant group or individual. This is a point that both sides may all-too-easily forget: the worry about corporate funding isn’t (or needn’t be) an accusation of vicious intent: it’s a point about the divergence of interests observed across a range of disparate individuals and groups. Being aware of what motivates each participant in a collaborative venture is likely in the interest of all.

Relevant Links:
Cancer United’s website
Roche Pharmaceuticals

Would someone please turn down the volume on the self-righteousness? No, not the self-righteousness of rockstars or save-the-world types (where you’d expect it), but the self-righteousness of critics of the (Product) Red project.

For those of you who’ve managed not to hear of it, Red is a project that has various companies offereing “Red” versions of their products, and a portion of the profits go to buying AIDS drugs for needy Africans. I’ve already blogged twice this year on this topic (here and here.) I thought I had said enough, but over the last week the project has been in the media spotlight again, and there’s been another wave of cynicism & criticim in response. So, here I go again.

Here are just a few of the criticisms, gleaned & summarized from various editorials & blogs, along with some quick responses:

“Hey, this isn’t about doing good! These companies are making money!“ First, who ever said doing good and making money can’t possibly go hand-in-hand, ever? Second, supporters of the project (including some of the companies involved) have been very clear that profits are what is going to (hopefully) make this project last, so that it can do good in the long-run. Giving generously, out of the goodness of one’s heart, is a wonderful thing. But generosity has its limits. Volunteers run out of steam. The public is fickle: it’s hard to keep people interested in helping after the band has left the stage at the latest fundraiser. But a project that harnesses the productive & organizational power of corporations, along with the avarice and egos of consumers, might — just might — make a sustainable contribution.

“Consumerism is the problem, not the solution.” Nice slogan, but no. Consumerism didn’t cause AIDS, and it generally doesn’t cause famine. Consumerism may be A problem, but it’s not THE problem. We North Americans and Europeans have money (money that could do a lot of good if transferred to Africa), and one thing we’re terrifically good at is spending it on consumer goods. So, maybe consumerism IS the solution.

“It’s up to the drug companies to save Africa. They’ve got lots of money.” Three responses, here. One: having a lot of money doesn’t automatically result in an overriding obligation to use it to help strangers. That may sound cold, but there just isn’t any evidence of either a) philosophical consensus or b) general social agreement that such an obligation exists. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be good for pharmas to do more, just that it’s hypocritical to expect too much, when most of us in affluent societies do so much less than we could. Two: the money the big pharmas have doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to their shareholders. They are no more allowed to just turn it over to causes — even good ones — than are auto makers or software companies. Three: from a practical point of view, just how much good do you think it will it do to wait until the consciences of the big pharmaco’s kicks in? (If you think I’m just soft on Pharma, see here and here.)

“Corporations are just doing this (and it’s too damned little!) in order to buy our forgiveness for all the bad things they’ve done, and continue to do.” Sure, maybe some of them are participating in Red for that reason. Who knows? Probably not all are. But we should certainly be careful about being too forgiving for genuine wrongdoing. No company should be able to buy its corporate soul out of purgatory that cheaply. But saying that these companies shouldn’t be doing this at all, or that we shouldn’t contribute through our purchases, seems like ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face.’

“There are better, more direct ways to help. Don’t buy products…just donate!” Fair enough. Truth is, though, that it doesn’t happen, at least not enough. And there are no indications that that’ll change any time soon. So, any other great ideas?

In the end, I think (Product) Red is an interesting project. Most of us don’t do nearly as much as we could, nor nearly as much as we arguably ought, to help those in need. If this project works (i.e., if it saves lives), I for one won’t be much concerned that the project achieved its noble ends by the dirty, dirty means of asking people to buy things they like.

Links to Critics of Red
African’s Poor Had the Best Week Ever by Richard Kim, blogging for The Nation
“Seeing (RED) Over Challenge to Celebrity Charity”, by syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved

The Business Ethics Network, which describes itself as the “premier international network of corporate accountability campaigners” has just announced the winners of its annual BENNY awards:

CAMPAIGNS ON COKE, SHELL, CHEVRON RECEIVE BENNY AWARDS

“The BENNY Awards recognize outstanding work to hold corporations accountable and rein in corporate abuse.  From industry to industry, corporations have too much power, which means workers, communities, and the environment have too little.” The BENNY Awards recognize outstanding campaigns advocating for corporations to change their behavior and be accountable to their workers, to the communities in which they operate, and to the environment.

The big winners this year were campaigns against Coke, Shell, and Chevron:

“1st Prize, $15,000: Think Outside the Bottle: Challenge Corporate Control of Water, Corporate Accountability International
”2nd Prize, $10,000: Sakhalin II Campaign, Sakhalin Environment Watch and Pacific Environment 
”3rd Prize, $5,000: Clean Up Ecuador Campaign, Amazon Watch”

My first thought upon reading this: this is kind of a neat activist response to the slew of congratulatory business ethics rankings (e.g., 100 Best Corporate Citizens for 2006), which focus on what a swell job some companies are doing, but which I suspect from an activist’s point of view risk overshadowing just how much bad behaviour continues.

(I’ve blogged about corporate ethics rankings before. See here and here, for example, and most recently here.)

My second thought: this has the makings of quite a PR battle. As I’ve noted before, sometimes even the most unlikely businesses can actually win ethics awards. This prompted me to wonder: if campaigns against Coke, Shell, and Chevron are winning awards, I wonder if those companies have themselves actually won any ethics awards?

A quick Google search turned up…
This press release, which lists Chevron Canada as “2006 recipient of the Ethics in Business Award of Distinction”
This page, which mentions that Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman of the Committee of Managing Directors and former CEO, Royal Dutch Shell Group of Companies is a past-recipient of “the prestigious Stanley C. Pace Ethics and Leadership Award honoring leaders who have modeled exceptional commitment to ethics in their organizations”.

I cite these awards not to rebut the accusations implied by the BENNY awards, but to raise again the complexity of rating and ranking. Food for thought: how is it that a single company can be the target of an award-winning ethics campaign, and yet itself be the recipient of ethics awards?

Related Links:
The Business Ethics Network’s website.
Think Outside the Bottle
Sakhalin II Campaign
Clean Up Ecuador Campaign

Business ethics isn’t just about ethical decision-making by businesses: it’s also about the values implicit in (or jeopardized by) free markets, and the role of commerce in the good life. Hence the relevance of this article by Tony Long at Wired. Long’s commentary is a lament over the death (which Long says is imminent) of the small, independent bookstore. It’s also not very convincing in its attempt to get me to share Long’s concern, though it serves as a good example of why rhetorical questions aren’t a good way to make an argument.

Now, just to be clear, I’ve got nothing against small, independent bookstores, or small independent anythings, for that matter. My favourite pub is small & independent. My greengrocer is small & independent. My favourite coffee shop is small & independent, and outshines Starbucks in every way (friendlier staff; better coffee; better food; free internet; you name it…).

Anyway, Long has a special love of small, independent bookstores. Witness:

Is there a more agreeable way of passing a few idle hours than roaming through the haphazard stacks of a slightly musty, idiosyncratically stocked, independent bookstore?

This is clearly a rhetorical question; Long isn’t looking for an answer, because he thinks the answer is an obvious “no.” He’s wrong. Wanna know what’s more agreeable than what he proposes? How about finding the book you’re looking for, efficiently (perhaps on-line?), and then having time left over to, I dunno, spend time with friends and family? Or to go to the gym? Or to read a book?

Long assumes that the success of other kinds of book sellers all comes down to money & convenience, and that that’s a bad thing:

OK, maybe it’s more convenient and a little bit cheaper to do your book shopping at Amazon. But at what cost to your quality of life? …. Is saving five bucks off the latest best seller by buying it online really worth another boarded-up storefront on your local commercial thoroughfare?

Again the question is rhetorical; again the answer is supposed to be obvious. And again, Long is wrong. No, saving five bucks isn’t worth another boarded-up storefront; but why think that’s the thing my $5 is buying? Why not say it’s $5 that I could spend buying a beer for a friend, or donate to a favourite charity, or use to buy a ticket to a craft fair? The point is we don’t save money just to save money; we save money to spend on other things, and at least some of those things are just as noble and worthy (if you want to make those sorts of value judgments on other people’s behalf) as haunting the philosophy section of your favourite old-school bookstore.

So, basically, I think Long’s argument amounts to this: ‘I like hanging out among dusty rows of books, and I would rather find books serendipitously than find something that I have reason to think I’ll like or need. So, you should too. The success of on-line bookstores like Amazon and big-box stores like Wal-Mart is reducing the availability of the aesthetic experiences I value, so you shouldn’t give Amazon & Wal-Mart your business.’

Long has every right to his opinion, & to seek out the aesthetic experiences he values. Me, I’m off to my favourite on-line bookstore to click-to-buy a copy of this book (a gift for a friend; I’ve already got a copy), then off to the pub for beer with some buddies.

(See also comments on this by Andrew over at Rebel Sell.)

UPDATE: Thanks to Joan for sending me this related story from The Guardian: The Best Sellers. It’s a story about small bookstores that might well survive, because they deserve to, and others that won’t because they don’t.)

Apple has faced a bit of criticism over its environmental record of late. In particular, GreenPeace recently launched this website, a parody of Apple’s own website. The parody site proclaims the campaigners’ affection for Apple, along with an ardent desire that the computer company clean up its act, environmentally speaking:

We love Apple. Apple knows more about “clean” design than anybody, right? So why do Macs, iPods, iBooks and the rest of their product range contain hazardous substances that other companies have abandoned? A cutting edge company shouldn’t be cutting lives short by exposing children in China and India to dangerous chemicals. That’s why we Apple fans need to demand a new, cool product: a greener Apple.

The webpage follows up on an earlier GreenPeace report, their Guide to Greener Electronics. That report “…ranks leading mobile and PC manufacturers on their global policies and practice on eliminating harmful chemicals and on taking responsibility for their products once they are discarded by consumers.” It says that, from an environmental point of view, Apple ranks near the bottom of the pack: just ahead of Lenovo, Motorola, and Acer, but well behind companies like Dell, Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung. Why does apple score so badly? According to the report,

Apple scores badly on almost all criteria. The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Apple performs poorly on product take back and recycling, with the exception of reporting on the amounts of its electronic waste recycled.

Apple, for its part, has the following to say, on its Apple and the Environment page:

Environmental protection is a priority for the conservation of precious natural resources and the continued health of our planet. Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen and is continually striving to reduce the environmental impact of the work we do and the products we create.

So, how do we make sense of this?
Well, one possibility is that GreenPeace’s assessment of Apple is fair & accurate. Even folks who are fans of Apple’s products (and frankly I’m one of them) should acknowledge that it’s at least possible for a company that produces beautiful, efficient technology to do so in a way that’s not as environmentally-friendly as it could be. Naivete about this would be pretty sad, even childish.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t take the rating handed out by an activist group — even a well-established one like GreenPeace — at face value. In particular, we need to look at the criteria GreenPeace uses in arriving at its ranking. In particular, it’s worth noting that according to the GreenPeace report, “Companies are ranked solely on information that is publicly available.” This, of course, is not uncommon among rankings. Companies are not always cooperative, so researchers and activists interested in evaluating & ranking companies often have no choice but to rely on whatever info is available on corporate websites, in Annual Reports, in SEC filings, etc.
But note the particular result this focus on public sources has for the GreenPeace report: some companies get slammed for not (publicly) providing a time-line for phasing out certain chemicals or for failing to mention the Precautionary Principle, while others get credit for using the right definition of the Precautionary Principle (there are several competing definitions, by the way), or for “explicitly supporting” edgy environmental concepts such as “Individual Producer Responsibility.” So, the report shows evidence of little (if any) effort to measure actual environmental performance. Should this critcism of the GreenPeace report reassure us about Apple’s commitment to the environment? Not entirely. The aspirations and promises that appear on a corporate website do matter. Companies that stick their neck out by promising to reduce pollution, committing to changing production methods, etc., deserve credit for saying something that they eventually be held to. It’ll be interesting to see whether GreenPeace’s criticisms spur Apple to stick its own neck out a little more. Which, of course, was the whole point right?

(Thanks to blogger & Apple fan Daniel Eran for pointing out the significance of the “publicly available” bit.) (And thanks to former student Nicole for the story idea.)

A number of blogs have taken note of this report on Genetic Testing of Embryos.

One of the more striking findings of the study has to do with one particular use of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), namely to ensure that the child that (eventually, probably) results from the process is deaf. According to the report…

Some prospective parents have sought PGD to select an embryo for the presence of a particular disease or disability, such as deafness, in order that the child would share that characteristic with the parents. Three percent of IVF-PGD clinics report having provided PGD to couples who seek to use PGD in this manner.

Yes, that’s right: a certain percentage of deaf individuals value their deafness, value their participation in what they refer to as “deaf culture,” and want to raise a child in that culture. Doing so, of course, requires that the child be deaf.

OK, so most commentators are going to ask “is it OK for parents to try to ensure that their child is born with a disability?” Here’s a quick summary of the debate:

On the “con” side:

• Deafness is, from most people’s point of view, a disability. Children born deaf face obstacles and dangers not faced by children with “normal” hearing. Parents should be trying to improve their children’s lots in lives, not impoverish them.

On the “pro side:”

• Not everyone thinks of deafness as a disability.
• It’s up to parents to decide — within very broad boundaries — what’s best for their kids.
• A kid born deaf due to PDG cannot be regarded as having been harmed by their parent’s choice, because had they (back when they were an embryo) NOT been selected, “they” would never have been born.

OK, so that’s the standard debate.
But this isn’t a generic ethics blog…this is the Business Ethics Blog. From the point of view of business ethics, this isn’t (strictly) about the choices parents make, but about the products and services that private fertility clinics (i.e., businesses) choose to make available. What difference does the commercial aspect make?

Some will say it makes the whole thing worse. After all, it’s one thing for parents to choose what they think best for their kid (even if some of us disagree with that choice); but it’s another thing for some company to profit from churning out kids with disabilities.
Others will say that the commercial aspect makes this all easier. It’s “merely” a commercial transaction. The clinic, as a mere commercial entity, can’t be (much) responsible, because after all, the consumer is king. If the consumer wants deaf babies, the consumer gets deaf babies.

So, from a business ethics point of view, are deaf embryos/babies any different (at a sufficiently high level of abstraction, of course) from other socially controversial products and services? Such as:

• rap music;
• pornography;
• guns;
• SUV’s
• fur coats;
• etc.

In each of these cases, businesses are making money off of something that at least some people think shouldn’t be sold at all, but that other people are willing to defend (and, indeed, purchase).

Is the fact that there’s social disagreement enough to imply that businesses shouldn’t be selling these products? (i.e., should businesses avoid selling anything controversial?) Or does the specific nature of the worry about a given product matter? For porn, the worry has to do with the objectification of women. For guns, it’s increased violence. For SUV’s, its…well, a whole list of worries. And for deaf embryos, the worry is likely a combination of a) concern for the quality of life of the child that results, and b) the “commodification” of babies/reproduction/life in general.

Probably no one thinks that any controversy immediately implies that you shouldn’t sell your product. There are an awful lot of products — including some I’m quite fond of — that are going to be opposed by someone. So, the key question seems to be, what extra obligations (if any) does a well-intentioned company undertake if they decide to market a product or service that is relatively deeply socially divisive?

[Thanks to Rebel Sell for lobbing the hot potato my way.]

Food isn’t as simple as it used to be. Once upon a time, a bottle with a picture of an apple on it was pretty likely to contain apple juice…you know, the juice of an apple. A real apple. One of those things that grows on trees. These days, the bottle might contain apple juice, or mostly apple juice, or apple-flavoured synthetic apple beverage. Plus, once upon a time, people (supposedly) knew which foods were (supposedly) good for them, because products were simple. Apples were apples. Beef was beef. Butter was butter. Now, apples can be genetically modified, beef can be mechanically separated, and butter-like products may-or-may-not contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. Modern food labelling seeks to help consumers navigate these murky waters. Just how effective is it?
Here’s the story from Reuters: Americans puzzled by food labels

Most Americans read food labels to help them decide what to buy but few people actually understand what they’re reading or consuming, according to two U.S. studies published on Tuesday.

What sort of information confuses consumers?

Overall, patients correctly answered 69 percent of the questions, but they had problems understanding serving sizes and extraneous information and completing simple calculations.
For instance, only 32 percent of patients could correctly calculate the amount of carbohydrates in a 20-ounce bottle of soda that had 2.5 servings in the bottle, and only 23 percent could determine the amount of net carbohydrates in a serving of low-carbohydrate spaghetti.

This is pretty bad. On one hand, it speaks to the functional illiteracy (and innumeracy) of a significant portion of the American (and, I’m guessing, Canadian) population. But it also means that a significant number of consumers just aren’t benefiting from the additional information that food packagers are required to provide. Think about what this means beyond food labels: the results of these studies probably also imply that roughly the same percentages of people aren’t understanding the specs for their cars (or their car loans), mortgage documents, safety instructions on power tools, etc. If autonomous choice requires full information, so much for consumer autonomy.

Roughly, this implies 3 options:

1) Work hard at improving literacy rates, especially when it comes to reading consumer labels. (Just whose responsibility is that, anyway?)
2) Give up on labels. (“They don’t work, so why bother?”)
3) Shrug our shoulders and say, “No system is perfect. Some understanding is better than none.”

Discuss!

Footnote:
In an article forthcoming in the Journal of Business Ethics, Melissa Whellams and I argue that there’s no ethical obligation for corporations to label Genetically Modified foods. (You can read the abstract here.) One of the things we point out (and we’re not the first to say this) is that simply providing labels doesn’t necessarily mean that people will then be able to make good choices about what they eat. If people don’t understand what a calorie or a gram of carbohydrate means, how on earth are they going to understand what it means when the label says “This product may contain Genetically Modified ingredients”? If the GM food issue interests you, go back to the list of options above, and go through them again….

[update: A loyal blog reader tells me that Oprah Winfrey recently dedicated a show to reading food labels. Given that she’s got something like 10 million viewers each week, that’s a pretty significant contribution.]

Working Mother magazine has put together their 21st annual list of the 100 Best Companies (which they also refer to as the most “family-friendly” companies in America).

Programs we could only imagine a few years ago—16 months of maternity leave, free backup care, phase-back programs, $10,000 in adoption reimbursement—are now a reality at many of our Working Mother 100 Best Companies. In selecting this year’s winners, we gave special weight to leave policies, because it’s critical for a mother to be able to stay home as long as possible with her newborn without suffering professionally.

WM lists their top 100 in alphabetical order, so I can’t tell you who topped the list. Among the welll-known companies included, however, are Aflac, Allstate, American Express, and Avon. There are also a few surprises (i.e., companies that have overall various kinds of image / social responsibility problems) such as Dow Corning, Ford, GlaxoSmithKline, and Microsoft.

What is the WM list based on? There isn’t a lot of specific information, but according to WM’s Methodology page:

Seven areas are measured and scored: workforce profile, compensation, child care, flexibility, time off and leaves, family-friendly programs and company culture.

Helpfully, the list also provides access to extra information about just what makes each company a good place for working moms.

Interestingly, BusinessWeek leaves out the whole “mom” angle, and entitles their version of the story List of 100 top places for women to work (so, is that women generally? Are they trying to keep the headline short, or just assuming that all women are current-or-potential moms?)

(Thanks to Feministing for the story.)

I can see it now, the smoke coming out of the ears of the most strident anti-corporate critics, as they try to make sense of this one.

Wal-Mart is an evil, low-paying, mom-and-pop-store killing, culture-dumbing, hegemonic corporate monster, right?

And drug companies are money-hungry giants that care more about their profits than they do about the health, well-being, & financial status of their customers, right?

So…what are we supposed to think when evil Wal-Mart takes on the evil Drug Companies?

Here’s the story, courtesy of the Detroit Free Press: Wal-Mart to Cut Prices for Generic Drugs

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, plans to slash the prices of almost 300 generic prescription drugs, offering a big lure for bargain-seeking customers and presenting a challenge to competing pharmacy chains and makers of generic drugs.
The drugs will be sold for as little as $4 for a month’s supply and include some of the most commonly prescribed medicines….

Now, Wal-Mart claims that it sees the drug companies as “partners” in this endeavour.

…Wal-Mart is working with the 30 participating drug companies to help them be more efficient. “We are working with them as partners. We are not pressuring them to reduce prices….”

Uh-huh. I’ve blogged before about the love-hate relationship that many suppliers have with Wal-Mart. The point is, Wal-Mart is here (again) using its economic might and savvy supply-chain management techniques in a way that is genuinely beneficial…not to shareholders of pharma companies, but to the working-class folks who make up the bulk of their customer base. Now, I have nothing against the shareholders of pharma companies, nor do I begrudge them their stock dividends. The point is that a paradigm-bending company like Wal-Mart shifts benefits around within an economy. Wal-Mart makes some people better off, and others worse off. Should you be a fan of Wal-Mart? That depends on some combination of a) whether you think Wal-Mart’s net impact is positive, and b) whether you think the harms and benefits of Wal-Mart are appropriately distributed.

Hmmm….so, first Wal-Mart goes organic, and now they’re trying to do something the U.S. government has been unable to do, namely get pharmaceuticals into the hands of people who really need them, at a reasonable price. What next? It looks like it’s going to get harder and harder to find reasons to hate the Beast of Bentonville.

Here’s an ethical issue that doesn’t make it into a lot of textbooks: what names are ethically permissible for your product? A beverage company has decided to name its “energy drink” after a dangerous drug. Here’s the story: ‘Cocaine’ drink claims to be real thing

Its maker claims the title is “a bit of fun” but critics slammed the technique as a cynical ploy which could tempt young people into using drugs.
The drink’s inventor, Jamie Kirby, said: “It’s an energy drink, and it’s a fun name. As soon as people look at the can, they smile.”
He claims Cocaine is “350 percent stronger than Red Bull” but that people do not experience the “sugar crash” or jitters that he says some of the other energy drinks can produce.

Here, again, is one of those stories that makes my vision go all grey.
Are young people really likely to use an energy drink as a “gateway drug”? That’s hard to believe. (“Say, it’s so great in a can, maybe I should try freebasing!”)
On the other hand, is promoting a product that could even conceivably lead anyone to attribute a remotely positive connotation to the term “cocaine” an admirable business strategy? Don’t think so. Is it 100% cool to market a drink named after a drug that has ruined millions of lives? Probably not. In fact, it probably means you’re the kind of person who thinks that “hey, as long as it’s legal, and as long as no one is being directly harmed (probably), then it’s a great way to make a living.”

As a frame of reference, are there other products that have dubious names? I suppose Iceland’s Black Death schnapps might be a contender. Though (given that the real Black Death — i.e., the Black Plague — is a few hundred years past), I think the Icelanders are just showing a sense of humour regarding what is, by most accounts I’ve read, a horrible-tasting beverage. See also Bong Water (a carbonated citrus drink made by Real Things Distributing), and Pimp Juice. (Sort of a pattern, there, with the energy drinks…) Then there was also Ice-T’s (in)famous rap tune, “Cop Killer” (1992), though I guess the issue there wasn’t so much the name of the song as its content. There was also Porn Star clothing.

Of course, Cocaine (the energy drink) is aimed at a young audience…generally, that’s who energy drinks are aimed at (which is odd, when you think about how much energy young folks have compared to older folks. Anyway…) So, the fact that Cocaine (the energy drink) is aimed at a younger audience is part of the problem. When you market to kids, you bear extra responsibilities. And notice that almost all of the products with controversial names (at least, the ones I can think of) are aimed at youth. (Picture it: “Whoah! If I wear a t-shirt that says Cocaine on it, that’ll really piss off mom & dad!”)

Where does that leave us? I don’t know. I suppose as long as there are rebellious teenagers, there will be someone who wants to make money off them by giving their product a naughty name. Business students ought to be encouraged to ask themselves this: do you really want to look back on your career, and say that your biggest achievement was introducing Crack Whore(TM) lip gloss to the world?

Relevant Links:
Cocaine energy drink’s website
Cocaine & Crack info from the National Institute on Drug Abuse