What`s your opinion on businesses and charity?

[jmattbassplaya]

I found this on Yahoo and it got me thinking...

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beaut...-goods-562909/

"This week the New York Times reported a disheartening story about two of the largest retail chains. You see, instead of taking unsold items to sample sales or donating them to people in need, H&M and Wal-Mart have been throwing them out in giant trash bags. And in the case that someone may stumble on these bags and try to keep or re-sell the items, these companies have gone ahead and slashed up garments, cut off the sleeves of coats, and sliced holes in shoes so they are unwearable.

This unsettling discovery was made by graduate student Cynthia Magnus outside the back entrance of H&M on 35th street in New York City. Just a few doors down, she also found hundreds of Wal-Mart tagged items with holes made in them that were dumped by a contractor. On December 7, she spotted 20 bags of clothing outside of H&M including, "gloves with the fingers cut off, warm socks, cute patent leather Mary Jane school shoes, maybe for fourth graders, with the instep cut up with a scissor, men’s jackets, slashed across the body and the arms. The puffy fiber fill was coming out in big white cotton balls.”

The New York Times points out that one-third of the city's population is poor, which makes this behavior not only wasteful and sad, but downright irresponsible. Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Melissa Hill, acted surprised that these items were found, claiming they typically donate all unworn merchandise to charity. When reporters went around the corner from H&M to a collections drop-off for charity organization New York Cares, spokesperson Colleen Farrell said, “We’d be glad to take unworn coats, and companies often send them to us."

After several days of no response from H&M, the company made a statement today, promising to stop destroying the garments at the midtown Manhattan location. They said they will donate the items to charity. H&M spokeswoman Nicole Christie said, "It will not happen again," and that the company would make sure none of the other locations would do so either. Hopefully that's the final word."

...does anyone have the right to tell a business how to go about getting rid of their old inventory?

I can see both sides of this, too. If you aren`t able to sell certain merchandise and plan on destroying it why not just donate it to people who can use it? At the same time, however, it`s their inventory and shouldn`t they be allowed to do whatever they want without news outlets questioning their values, morals, ethics, etc... over what they (businesses) decide to do with their own, old products? I mean, why should someone benefit at the companies loss?

Just curious as to what you all think. Personally I think a business should at least try to donate whatever they plan on destroying, throwing out, etc... to charity first - just to see if they can use it. At the same, I also feel that a business should not be publicly displayed and questioned on moral grounds over what they decide to do with old merchandise that they are throwing out. It`s unnecessary in my mind and hurts a companies reputation for no real reason. Basically, businesses should be allowed to do what they want - in regards to this topic, at least.

So yeah, what you think?

[René_Julien]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

At the same, I also feel that a business should not be publicly displayed and questioned on moral grounds over what they decide to do with old merchandise that they are throwing out.

+1

It's their property and they can do as they please with it.
They have no moral obligation whatsoever.
They aren't the cause of why poor people can't afford their products.
Poverty has many factors and other things to blame.



However, if they did give their old stock away to charity that would be great.
If only... it would make the world a nicer place.



When I was 16 I used to work in the warehouses of a company that traded and transported fruit and vegetables.
Man, the tons, well, more in units of hundreds of kilos at one time, I saw destroyed on purpose because a truck drove into it or another stupid accident that actually not ruined the food.

Once it was a case for the insurance, poison and other chemicals were sprayed on it so it will spoil fast and it would be disposed of immediately.

It's the way things go.


Can't blame the companies, but society as a whole when it comes to consumers and buyers.

[Jimmy Bones]

The problem is, if it becomes well known that product will be given away if not old, the human condition dictates that people at large will stop buying and try to get it for free.

I feel morally that legitimately unsold items ought to be given to the truly needy, and I am sure there are ways of going about it that can make it fair or relatively unexploitable. Realistically, however, stores are businesses, which are there solely to make a profit. Profits go down, people lose jobs - there are tons of factors on both sides of this argument, and without taking sides, I think I'll back out of the conversation.

[cassanova]

The ethical thing to do is donate the unsold items to charity and those in need. I'm glad reporters call business' out on this type of behavior. Especially when it comes to places that discard massive amounts of food at the end of the day.

I know the goal in business is to make profit, but, if you don't want a surplus of items lingering around, going unsold, and getting thrown out, then they should work harder at bettering their procurement procedures for the goods they carry. Ultimately, the discarded surplus results in higher prices on items in the stores because they want to recoup the lost costs.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bones

The problem is, if it becomes well known that product will be given away if not old, the human condition dictates that people at large will stop buying and try to get it for free.

Originally Posted by cassanova

The ethical thing to do is donate the unsold items to charity and those in need. I'm glad reporters call business' out on this type of behavior. Especially when it comes to places that discard massive amounts of food at the end of the day.

I actually agree with both of you... Or... Err... I really can't decide between the two :P

In all honesty I don't know where I stand. I guess my medium is that businesses should be encouraged to give old inventory to charities, but that they should never be called out on it publicly. It just seems a little too severe.

And Jimmy, I agree too much free stuff is like a dog to a whistle. A few times is fine, but if you over do it you could make matters a lot worse if people start thinking they are entitled to charity.

[mike_v_s]

I worked at a national chain in college. They had the same practice. I asked the store manager why for all the same reasons. He informed me that they used to donate everything to the local goodwill (including slightly damaged furniture). They had a huge problem with employees hiding merchandise to ensure it wouldn't sell, then having it sent off to Goodwill where they would buy it later that night for a couple bucks. They stopped everyhting when furniture started getting damaged on purpose.

Mike

[billjr]

The decision should be the business owner's, and I think throwing that stuff out is a poor business decision. No matter what they do with it, they still get to use the costs of those goods as a reduction in their profit. If they throw it out, they risk getting bad publicity. I think the right business decision is to donate the items and get all the good publicity you can, as it will probably be free news articles, word of mouth, etc instead of paid advertising.

As far as employees abusing the system, you have to develop a system that will make it very likely people will get caught, and then prosecute to the fullest extent possible.

[Stanley Design]

It's for legal reasons. They can't donate those items because if anything ever malfunctioned or ANYTHING at all happened they would have lawsuits up the ying yang. Every single big box store operates this way with the majority of returns or stuff that has defects/broken parts during shipping.

I started breaking in to the private dumpsters of walmart/canadian tire/futureshop when I was 17 and still do it every once in a while when we're bored. You can get a ton of great stuff and most of the time with anything electrical all you need to do is replace the power cable.

We got this trampoline out of the dumpster a few years ago, it has an 8" rip on one side of the mesh and that's the only problem it has. It's never gotten any bigger, probably could have been repaired and given to a poor family for christmas.

[Unrepresented]

While I agree that they have no ethical obligation to do the right thing (corporations and ethics are by design antonyms), I certainly feel like I have an ethical obligation to boycott any company who would engage in such heinously wasteful practices, not simply because of their lack of empathy for the poor but for the environmental costs of manufacturing, distributing, and ultimately landfilling all the resources that went into those items.

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

I worked at a national chain in college. They had the same practice. I asked the store manager why for all the same reasons. He informed me that they used to donate everything to the local goodwill (including slightly damaged furniture). They had a huge problem with employees hiding merchandise to ensure it wouldn't sell, then having it sent off to Goodwill where they would buy it later that night for a couple bucks. They stopped everyhting when furniture started getting damaged on purpose.

Mike

That sounds like a reason to terminate employees not a reason to terminate what would otherwise be a win/win program.

[hbarcat]

When I was in high school my track team wanted to get new warm up uniforms to replace the old, worn out ones. In order to get the matching funding the school had to declare that the old uniforms were unusable and had to promise to destroy them.

I knew this because my coach informed a handful of us on the track team that this was the case and that the uniforms were to be stored overnight in a temporarily unlocked room and commented how much of a shame it would be that they would all be destroyed the next day unless someone happened to quietly sneak in and take a bunch of them.

[MJ5150]

I get really mad at restaurants when they throw away an entire order of food just because one thing was wrong. At least let me buy it half price or something.

-Mike

[Stanley Design]

Originally Posted by MJ5150

I get really mad at restaurants when they throw away an entire order of food just because one thing was wrong. At least let me buy it half price or something.

-Mike

Same with bars and spill from the tap.

[MJ5150]

Originally Posted by Stanley Design

Same with bars and spill from the tap.

No kidding. Some bartenders pour the equivalent of another glass down the drain as they top off the one they are about to serve. So sad when it is a really good beer.

-Mike

[m0nst3r]

Ethics aside, it's their merchandise, they can do whatever they want with it. They have no obligation to donate it to anyone. On the otherhand, given the social responsibility placed on businesses today, what they were doing was very stupid, and should have/be donating it to charity. It would only bring goodwill to the company, and it would eventually be good for business.

[m0nst3r]

Originally Posted by Stanley Design

It's for legal reasons. They can't donate those items because if anything ever malfunctioned or ANYTHING at all happened they would have lawsuits up the ying yang. Every single big box store operates this way with the majority of returns or stuff that has defects/broken parts during shipping.

Good point!

[sloasdaylight]

Personally I don't feel that anyone has any legal right to tell a business in America what it can and cannot do with it's left over beer, food, clothes, etc; so long as it's disposed of properly. This obviously means that restaurants can't empty their deep fryer grease into the street, etc.

Concerning ethical obligations these companies have: They have none other than what they impose on themselves. If Wal-mart wants to make it their policy to donate old and unworn clothes to Good will or the Red Cross or MM, then that is their choice. However it is also their choice and well within their rights to stop donating those articles of clothing to the same places, at which point I think those who benefited should be thankful for what they already received from the kindness of others on their way back to being self sufficient.

[jmattbassplaya]

What do you guys think about news medias reporting such details and making emotional appeals and ethics the muse of their article? I mean it`s definitely not slander because it`s true, but at the same time it just seems in very poor taste.

[SSINTENSE]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

What do you guys think about news medias reporting such details and making emotional appeals and ethics the muse of their article? I mean it`s definitely not slander because it`s true, but at the same time it just seems in very poor taste.

I think our society is a little too sensitive on the subject. It's good to be humanitarian but not when it clouds reasonable judgement. I think that businesses should once in a while donate their unused inventory but not make a habit of it. Otherwise potential customers (probably very low income), may start to find ways to exploit the fact. In many cases this kind of behavior encourages homelessness. I make the presumption here that homelessness is something that is caused psychologically and can be helped (I am sure other people will have different opinions). Having a constant handout service does not promote actions that would help get some people out of homelessness.

I worked for Pannera Bread once and they donated all of their unused food items to homeless shelters. This makes sense to me because food is something that people immediately need (you can't recover from homeless tendencies while starving).

The only problem I have with the sensitive media is that they never seem to portray the reasons why these businesses may do this and always try to paint them as the bad guy. It's good to be humanitarian, but I think people are extremely quick in passing judgement on businesses, simply because corporations and "evil" seem to go hand in hand in our cultural opinion.

[Munjibunga]

As the former CEO of a business, I believe that companies DO have a moral obligation to give to charities. We didn't have a set budget for charitable giving, but when we had lots of money, I gave away as much as I thought I could get away with without the Board smacking me down. Fortunately, our board is generous, and we even support charities now when money is scarce. We support a broad range of charities, from Special Olympics to the American Lung Association. We also have spent a lot of money on educational programs that promote science, engineering and technology. There are so many causes that are underfunded, it's important to society that we give them our support. There's payback, too. People remember your company name when you give support to their causes.

While there's really no legal compulsion to give money or unused products to charities, I'll bet you Wal Mart was wishing right now that they didn't have to bear the stigma from this event.

[rap138]

I think any social order that precise of charities is wrong.
The issue is why are we in such a mess that makes business sense to destroy anything.