In October, protesters gathered outside of Kellogg’s headquarters in Michigan demanding the company remove artificial dyes from its cereals sold in the U.S. The protest comes on the heels of California recently passing the California School Food Safety Act, which bans six artificial food dyes most commonly found in foods served in school cafeterias across the state – many of which are also found in Kellogg’s cereals.
While Kellogg’s has responded that their products are safe for consumption and meet federal standards set by the Food and Drug Administration, critics have pointed out that in Canada, Kellogg’s Froot Loops are made with natural fruit juice concentrates instead of artificial dyes — and are calling for Kellogg’s to adopt a similar standard and eschew the use of dyes in its U.S. products.
The outcry is the latest example of consumers banding together to demand higher standards of the companies they patronize — whether it’s product safety standards, workplace safety, or pay equity, people are advocating with their voices and wallets.
In the age of consumer advocacy, companies are adopting — or claiming to be adopting — a higher standard of respect and care for their customers — reflected in their corporate social governance (CSG) policies. A marketing professor and researcher at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, Boryana Dimitrova, PhD, who’s teaching interests include corporate social responsibility, consumer activism and sustainable consumption, recently spoke with the Drexel News Blog to help explain how genuine CSG efforts are, the bottom-line effects of consumers pushing for greater corporate social responsibility and whether or not publicizing CSG activities is an effective marketing strategy.
Why are people protesting outside of Kellogg’s headquarters and how has Kellogg’s responded?
An Instagram influencer, food activist and author, Vani Hari (also known as the @thefoodbabe) started a petition that has been signed by 400,000 people, asking Kellogg’s to remove all artificial colors and other harmful ingredients from their cereals because they have been shown to lead to various health issues.
Kellogg’s has not directly responded to Hari’s protest or petition, which has inspired the #cancelKelloggs movement that has taken over social media and has been supported by other food activist social media influencers, Hollywood celebrities such as Cindy Crawford and Eva Mendes, and professional athletes such as Bryce Harper.
Has Kellogg’s made any corporate social governance claims, other than claiming their ingredients are FDA approved?
In 2015, Kellogg’s announced it was aiming to stop using artificial colors and flavors in its cereal and snack brands by the end of 2018.
What are some other examples of companies who have responded to vocal public concerns about their products after falling short of their stated CSG goals?
An increasing number of brands in recent years have received backlash for not being as transparent and sincere as they claim to be regarding their corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts. Whether it is their sustainability efforts (greenwashing), in the case of Volkswagen and Kim Kardashian’s shapewear line SKIMS, or breast cancer awareness (pinkwashing), in the case of beauty company Estée Lauder.
Volkswagen, was accused of cheating on pollution tests and modifying engine software, also known as “dieselgate.” When the scandal was first brought to light, many customers took their business elsewhere, so much so that positive word-of-mouth for the German car manufacturer dropped by 67%. Investors were not happy either. Inevitably, Volkswagen’s bottom line was negatively impacted. Since then, Volkswagen has invested about 31 billion euros and taken multiple steps to address the issues and improve their reputation.
In 2022, SKIMS came under increasing pressure due to false advertising. It was found that the company has not provided any evidence to support their environmentally conscious packaging claims. In response the company has updated its environmental and sustainability partnerships on its website.
What happens to companies that have failed to adequately respond to public outcry — like Kellogg’s appears to be doing? How did that impact their public image? Their bottom line?
“Pinkwashing” is a somewhat new term, which implies that a brand is investing efforts in helping to fight breast cancer by contributing to non-profit organizations whose focus is just that — but the brand still produces, manufactures and/or sells products containing chemicals that are linked to the disease.
Beauty company Estée Lauder was accused of pinkwashing in 2007 when it launched its Pink Ribbon Collection in partnership with The Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF). The products in the collection contained parabens, which are linked to breast cancer.
In response to the public backlash, Estée Lauder took several steps to mitigate the pinkwashing accusations and has become transparent about what percentage of their sales goes toward breast cancer research and education. However, the brand has not shown any signs of its intention to remove parabens from its products and is still accused of profiting off women battling breast cancer.
I believe the current rise in consumer awareness of certain brands’ marketing trickery — like pinkwashing — will catch up with the companies, unless they respond to the allegations and take actions to do the right thing. It will ultimately push consumers away from them and toward brands who really care about the health and well-being of their customers and whose brand values align with the causes consumers choose to engage in.
How should Kellogg’s respond? Are there examples it can follow?
There’s a lot to be said about how Kellogg’s is handling the situation, as well as their approach to CSR, considering the current predicament they find themselves in.
The actions that they have taken thus far are telling consumers that the main concern for the brand seems to be their bottom line. Their reputation is quite tarnished, and will continue to be, until Kellogg’s addresses the concerns raised by the #cancelKelloggs movement and the circumstances that led to it.
I suspect Kellogg’s bottom line will not be immediately affected, but it will be in the future as their failure to respond to the current situation becomes more widespread. The very fact that we are talking about it means that there is progress in that direction.
Are there any regulatory mechanisms in place to enforce corporate social responsibility, or is public outcry and shaming the primary way companies are held accountable?
The idea behind CSR is that an organization should do business in a way that shows it cares about its customers, the community and the environment, while also considering the interests of its shareholders, and therefore, profits.
There are guidelines that push companies to do business in a more socially responsible way, but they impact some industries more than others. There are also strict regulations – like the Clean Air Act – that prevent companies from doing things that harm the environment; but these are baseline standards, while advocates for greater CSR have little legal power to entreat companies to go beyond harm prevention and adopt sustainability practices.
At its core, CSR starts with the products an organization offers. An organization who clearly takes CSR seriously would first make sure that their products promote the health and well-being of its core customers.
A more recent example of a company that eventually acted under regulatory pressure to prevent possible injuries and even death of those affected is Takata Corporation. In 2014, a New York Times article revealed that Takata was aware of potentially dangerous airbag defects well before the company made this known to federal regulators. To date, Takata has recalled 67 million airbags, which has affected tens of millions of vehicles. This had a significant impact on the company’s bottom line and Takata filed for bankruptcy in 2017.
If CSR was a priority for Takata, the company should have first gone through extensive product use testing and prototyping to make sure the air bags they manufacture did not have fatal defects that could potentially put passengers at risk. Second, if these defects were not uncovered during product use testing and prototyping, they should have signaled the issues with the airbags before they were “forced” to do so by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
While there are no true regulatory mechanisms to mandate companies take a proactive stance on solving environmental and social issues, programs like B Corporation provide a framework that many companies strive to reach to add credibility to their CSG efforts and improve the perception of their brand among consumers.
Are there good examples of companies that have maintained CSR as a value?
The skincare brand Primally Pure, that promotes non-toxic living, has incorporated CSR in every aspect of their business starting from the ground up – from their sourcing strategies to products and packaging. The brand has been around for 10 years and has experienced tremendous growth in the last few, becoming a multimillion-dollar company. This shows that consumers are becoming more aware of what they buy and who they buy from.
Seven Sundays Cereal is another example. The company is attempting to reduce food waste by using upcycled sunflower and oat protein to make the cereal and muesli they offer. Seven Sundays is also a certified B Corporation, which means that they meet “the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose.”
Unfortunately, unless CSR is enforced at the federal level, many companies just won’t make the effort. This has shown to be true in the Kellogg’s situation now, the Takata air bag recall, and even high-end brands, such as Estée Lauder.
Companies like Primally Pure, Seven Sundays, the Honest Company, and Vuori, to name a few, are a small example of brands that have not relied on regulatory pressures to promote the health and wellbeing of their customers, while also protecting the environment through different sustainability initiatives.
Media interested in speaking with Dimitrova should contact Annie Korp, assistant director, News and Media Relations, at 215-571-4244 or amk522@drexel.edu.
