Consumer question of the day --- do you do know what FMCG stands for?

Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) or consumer packaged goods (CPG) are products that are sold quickly and at relatively low cost. Examples include non-durable goods such as soft drinks, toiletries, over-the-counter drugs, processed foods and many other consumables.^[1][2]

In contrast, durable goods or major appliances such as kitchen appliances are generally replaced over a period of several years. The term was coined by Neil H. Borden in The Concept of the Marketing Mix in 1965 (1996, Prentice-Hall, Inc.).

FMCG have a short shelf life, either as a result of high consumer demand or because the product deteriorates rapidly. Some FMCGs, such as meat, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, and baked goods, are highly perishable. Other goods, such as alcohol, toiletries, pre-packaged foods, soft drinks, and cleaning products, have high turnover rates.

Though the profit margin made on FMCG products is relatively small (more so for retailers than the producers/suppliers), they are generally sold in large quantities; thus, the cumulative profit on such products can be substantial. FMCG is probably the most classic case of low margin and high volume business. (This information is from Wikipedia)

To be a pro-active consumer has always taken quite a bit of thought. 

Consumer boycotts have a long history:

1.   Boycotts as we know them today began in the nineteenth century and had quite an effect.

• Boycotting goods produced by slaves
• Blood-stained goods: the transatlantic boycott of slave labor

2.   In modern times, we are concerned about what is being added to or put into the food we purchase. As well, we are concerned about chemicals in our cleaning products and our cosmetics.

3.   We are concerned about animal welfare - cruelty, experimental research etc., lack of humane guidelines for industrial animals.  

4.   Some of us, but not enough, want to purchase Australian products.  The time has long since gone (probably late 1960s/early 1970s) when a consumer could purchase in a supermarket a trolley full of products which were produced wholly in Australia by Australian labour employed by Australian-owned companies.  

5.   Labelling is often far from truthful and/or transparent.  Major powerful food and grocery organisations such as the Australian Food & Grocery Council lobby strongly against simpler and easily understood labelling which is honest about point of origin.  So one is left to think that in the confusion there is profit!  Perhaps even an escape from Australian standards?

6.  Consumers in the 21st century have now to be conscious of Fair Trade and trade in goods produced by forced, exploited and/or slave labour --- even when those goods are made in Australia.
Major corporations are not necessarily cleanskins on this issue.  Some of these are multi-national corporations who do one thing in Australia and another in countries where they can get away with less stringent watchfulness and where consumers are unable to demand high standards.

Like this case involving Nestle. 

This corporation has a significant production presence in Australia, including in Victoria.

There are no consumer visits to the Nestle factory in Tongala.
The person interested in how these well-known commonly used products
and would like to see how they are produced -
well, you won't get past the reception office and the security there.
Considering that generations of Australians have been supporting
the Tongala community, this seems a bit rich.

Australia Post - do extreme salaries and worsening services amount to in-house corruption?

We have become a "nation" of ripped off mugs.."..What a country full of mugs are we to sit by and let all this...
Posted by Patricia Olive Corowa on Sunday, 10 January 2016

Refugees being frozen out of Australia to tropical Australia? Companies profiting from cruelty in detention centres will be frozen out by the City of Sydney.

Cross-posted with The Network and Beside The Creek

Campaign for Councils to refrain from doing business 

with companies that abuse human rights

Companies Involved In Offshore Detention

 Frozen Out By City Of Sydney

(IMAGE: Jason James, Flickr)

By Max Chalmers on December 15, 2015 Featured

A growing campaign to stop institutions from doing business with companies that abuse human rights has claimed a major scalp. Max Chalmers reports.

Companies profiting from the offshore detention of asylum seekers could be prevented from doing business with the City of Sydney after the Council resolved to review its investment and procurement policy and bring them into line with the No Business in Abuse campaign.

In a meeting last night, the Council voted to adopt a pledge not to support companies, institutions, or organisations that profit from abusive practices towards people seeking asylum.

Moved by Greens Councillor Irene Doutney (pictured), the successful motion will not impact current contracts, but could cause headaches for companies working in the offshore detention industry when new tenders are released.

Of particular interest will be the implications for Wilson Security, subcontracted by detention centre operator Broadspectrum (formerly known as Transfield) to provide security services in offshore centres. Wilson also provides substantial carparking and security services in Australia and the company has had a number of contracts with the City of Sydney, including an estimated $2.4 million deal to manage the Kings Cross Car Parking Station which is due to be reviewed in 2017.

Doutney told New Matilda that most members of the Council – dominated by Clover Moore’s progressive independents – were appalled by the abuses occurring in detention, and that she expected the motion would make it difficult for the Council to renew contracts with companies like Wilson in the future.

“I just think it’s really important for institutions, particularly councils, to take a stand on these sorts of things,” Doutney said. “People will say ‘it’s not Council business’, but I think anything to do with human rights is Council business. It’s really important to take a stand and, being City of Sydney, maybe other councils will now look favourably on the pledge.”

Doutney said the motion would not have an immediate impact but would put pressure on the Council not to sign contracts with or invest in companies linked to detention in the future. She said the Council already avoids investments in fossil fuels, tobacco, and nuclear.

The City of Sydney’s move comes at the end of a year that has seen Broadspectrum in particular come under pressure for its role in offshore detention, with the No Business in Abuse campaign occurring in tangent to a divestment movement. In August, super fund HESTA announced it was divesting, withdrawing $18 million from the company formerly known as Transfield.

The No Business in Abuse campaign said Leichhardt Council and Yarra City Council had also signed on.

“The City of Sydney is one of Australia’s largest councils, and their decision last night provides unstoppable momentum to the NBIA campaign which has expanded to target the clients of Broadspectrum and Wilson, including councils, schools, hospitals and big resources companies,” Shen Narayanasamy, Executive Director of No Business in Abuse and Human Rights Campaign Director at Getup, said in a press release.

Narayanasamy said the Wilson Group currently had over $3 million worth of contracts with the City of Sydney. If the Council holds its resolve, that number is likely to head towards zero in the coming years.

The Wilson Group could not be reached for comment.

     Source from New Matilda: 

https://newmatilda.com/2015/12/15/companies-involved-in-offshore-detention-frozen-out-by-city-of-sydney/

We know that #Transfield has little in the way of morals. As a match for their morals, they pay little in the way of tax.

Advocates, you will remember Transfield won't you === in spite of the fact that they are no longer operating detention centres under that name. Well, here is the latest.

#auspol #taxrort TRANSFIELD SERVICES LTD Total income: $2,817,422,919 Taxable income: $16,065,803 Tax payable: $0 pic.twitter.com/6euvxTP8jV

— David Marler (@Qldaah) December 17, 2015

Is fairness and equity alive and well across the WHOLE Australian polity?

I heard lots of people say “give Malcolm Turnbull a chance”. This is what he did with that chance. #auspol pic.twitter.com/Hr68KlaegI

— Van Badham (@vanbadham) December 16, 2015

Highlighting companies' role in fight against slavery and human trafficking

Posted on: November 20, 2015 2:36 PM

Human trafficking in Brazil: Bolivian migrants working in slave labour conditions in Sao Paulo having been tricked by recruiters.

Photo Credit: United Society (Us)

[ACNS, by Gavin Drake] A leading Anglican mission agency is calling for companies to appoint an individual board member with responsibility for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to ensure that the company – and its suppliers and partners – comply with human rights; particularly in the area of modern slavery and human trafficking.

The United Society (Us) has teamed up with Finance Against Trafficking, the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility (ECCR) and Rathbone Greenbank Investments to produce a report looking at the risks of human trafficking in the supply chains of FTSE 100 companies.

The FTSE 100 companies are the top 100 companies traded on the London Stock Exchange and have a combined value of £1,700 billion. Together, they account for 80 per cent of the market capitalisation of all listed UK companies.

Under new regulations introduced in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, such companies must now produce an annual statement setting out the steps it has taken to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in any of its supply chains or in any part of its own business. Alternatively, the company can issue a statement saying that it has taken no such steps.

Such a statement can include information about the company’s policies in relation to slavery and human trafficking; and its due diligence in relation to slavery and human trafficking in its business and supply chains; together with its effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains.

The statements will be publicly available and companies will have an obligation to publish them prominently on their websites.

The report produced by Us and its partners is intended to provide guidance to such companies. It includes information about the risks that such companies can face in unwittingly benefiting from slavery and trafficking. It also highlighted poor examples of company’s current reporting practices.

“Some companies made no mention of either forced labour or human trafficking as a potential risk nor detailed any actions or measures that would deal with it,” the report says. “Many of the companies mention human rights policies and their compliance with these policies, but often only in terms of equal opportunity or freedom of association. There is little disclosure or evaluation of human rights risks in their supply chains -

“We found examples of businesses reporting on one aspect of their supply chain, whilst remaining silent on other aspects. For instance, a company may have paid close attention to just one out of a number of potentially high-risk commodities used to manufacture its products. Such instances show inconsistency and a lack of overall transparency in reporting which makes it difficult to assess the credibility of their disclosure.”

The report summarises a number of weaknesses found in relation to the reporting of human trafficking and forced labour risks within certain sectors. “For the companies in the textiles industry, no information was provided on how inclusion of forced labour prohibition within Codes of Conduct is being implemented. For companies sourcing seafood there was minimal disclosure of the risks and there was a comprehensive lack of company information on the issues.

“For companies with gold in their supply chain, whilst forced labour was mentioned in company policies, there was no specific mention of human trafficking risks. There was no mention of the risks within gold supply chains in banking sustainability reports. For companies in the travel & leisure industry, there was no mention of the risks that staff may not recognise trafficking operations on company premises nor the potential for third party agencies to exploit migrant workers.

“We found that risks that are prevalent on an industry-wide level tend to be dealt with in a more transparent way by companies within the industries (though this varies from company to company), with some information given on action that is being taken to address the risk. On the other hand, specific risks which can affect a company, for example a commodity to which the company has exposure, tend not to be addressed clearly within reporting, if at all.”

The 50-page report isn’t a catalogue of errors and contains numerous examples of best practice. In the Jewellery trade, it highlights the work undertaken by Tiffany & Co: “The company details the risk posed by ‘conflict diamonds’ in which diamonds are mined with proceeds used to finance conflict and war, which involve human rights abuses and exploitation.

“In 2014 the company claimed to have received 100% of its rough diamonds either directly from a known mine or from a supplier with multiple known mines. The company cuts and polishes the diamonds in-house, mostly in the location from which they are sourced, with strict policies on fair wages for employees and a focus on developing a skilled workforce with sustainable incomes which benefit the community as a whole.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has welcomed the report. “Modern slavery is a scourge that grossly undermines the inherent and God-given dignity of the human, and we must work urgently to eradicate it from our world,” he said. “This report highlights that in our globalised economy, any business can be exposed to slavery through its supply chain.

“Companies that have conducted audits have been shocked to discover that they have been unwitting beneficiaries of slave labour. The transparency in supply chains measure in the Modern Slavery Act is a call to action that I urge British business to seize.”

His words were echoed by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Monsignor Vincent Nichols: “Transparency in the supply chain and measures that prevent modern slavery and exploitation in business will help to change cultures to ensure that human dignity is protected in the workplace,” he said.

“The measurement of business success cannot be limited to profit margins. It has to be how we treat our fellow human being. The FTSE 100, having taken a clear position of respecting and protecting all workers linked to their supply chains, demonstrates how attitudes can change to create a better society, particularly for the poor and vulnerable who depend on their employers.”

US partner churches have examples of people within their communities who have survived and escaped being trafficked, while many more continue to endure forms of slavery,” the mission agency’s director for global relations, Rachel Parry, said.

“It is easy to forget that we are all ‘investors’ in systems and businesses which can, through complex and distant supply chains, be connected to trafficking. This research considers how companies might be exposed to trafficking in their supply chains and suggests ways in which such risks can be managed and minimised.

“For those concerned about investing ethically, the report gives guidance on questions that investors could ask investment managers or companies regarding these risks. Companies need to improve their efforts to monitor and manage their supply chains. This report gives some practical guidance about how better to go about this.”

Bishop Michael Doe, chair of the ECCR, said: “In a recent survey, over 70 per cent said they would be unhappy if their money was invested in unethical business. That figure would be even higher if they found they were profiting from abusive labour practices and the treatment of people, including children, which amounts to present day slavery.

“All of us, and especially those of us who believe that every person is created equal with the right to a free and fulfilling life, need to know more and to act more decisively. That is what this report can help us to do.”

The report, “Forced Labour, Human Trafficking & The FTSE 100” can be downloaded from the WeAreUs website. (PDF)

BP is dragging its feet on payment to clean up the mess in the Gulf of Mexico

BP caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, but it only wants to pay a tiny fraction of the price.

In 2014, the oil giant was ordered to pay $18 billion for the devastating Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. This January, its executives appealed the figure claiming it “can’t afford” to pay.

But not having enough money is the least of BP’s problems. Last year alone, BP made a profit of $23 billion, making it one of the 10 most profitable companies in the world. It’s also distributed a whopping $19 billion in dividends to investors since the spill.

If it can share its huge profits amongst its shareholders, it can afford to pay to clean up this devastating environmental disaster.

Sign the petition asking BP to pay full compensation 
for the Deepwater Horizon spill!

On April 20, 2010, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig led to 11 deaths and injured and killed hundreds of marine animals, making it the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The long-term effects of the reckless oil spill have been even worse. Just recently, a new scientific study from Florida State University showed that sediments settling on the ocean floor from the spill will contaminate the entire food supply for years to come.

This isn't the first time BP has tried to avoid responsibility for this tragedy. Back in 2010, a BP executive blatantly lied: he told the US government that just 5,000 barrels of oil a day were being released, even though he knew that number was much higher.

Now, it has lost an appeal to the U.S. Supreme court asking to pay less than what is required to. It's clear, BP is doing everything and anything to wiggle out of this responsibility.

Tell BP it can’t get away with destroying the Gulf of Mexico -- 
pay to clean up the mess!

Time and time again the SumOfUs community has stood up to Big Oil's destruction of the environment. Hundreds of thousands of us joined forces to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic and almost 200,000 of us came together to demand that Chevron pay for its crimes in the Ecuadorian Amazon. And together with allies, we’re holding back climate-destroying fossil fuel projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.

Let's come together one more time to show Big Oil that it can’t recklessly destroy our environment without paying the price.

Tell BP to pay the $14 billion it owes 
for the Deepwater Horizon spill!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK - 

THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY

Brigid O'Carroll Walsh shared Bernie Sanders's photo.

4 hrs · 

Which one of our Australian politicians - all parties and independents included - has ever made a statement similar to this? I can't think of any.

Like ·  · Share

• Di Perkins, Michael Croft and Megan Anne like this.
• 

  Michael Croft http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../piketty-myth-of...

  

  Piketty: 'The Myth Of National Sovereignty Helps Big Corporations Screw Us Over'

  French economist Thomas Piketty has put inequality...

  HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

  Unlike · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 · 4 hrs
• 

  Brigid O'Carroll Walsh Michael Croft Is "National Sovereignty" the same as or equal to Tribalism? Are there good points to such tribalism or sovereignty? I ask this because I sometimes wonder about social cohesion - which is easier to see in less populous nations. Is there a middle ground between claustrophobic tribalism and the rampant anonymity of an internationalism that is footloose, feckless and fancy free and with only slight ties and loyalty to any community.

  Like · Reply · 42 mins
• 

  Michael Croft No, they are not the same thing, although some will equate nationalism to tribalism as they share some similar characteristics. The "ism" is the issue in both cases. Sovereignty is the ability of people (or state) to determine their own systems, codes, laws etc. and not have that overridden by others systems, laws, codes etc. Obviously personal sovereignty and state sovereignty clash often, but what is new is corporations being granted rights that challenge those of nation states when they are domiciled elsewhere. The ISDS provisions in the TPP is granting this power. The ISDS provisions are the same as permitting an Australian citizen going into the USA and s/he being permited to suing the USA for the losses incurred because they were not granted a Green Card, whilst simultaneous not paying income tax in the USA because you are not a citizen of the USA. That's how insidious the new trans national corporate vision is for the world. This is already being done to Australia with our plain packaging laws for cigarettes, Australia is being sued by a foreign corporation - hence the myth of national sovereignty, we are no longer in charge of our own law making even if it is to benefit our own citizens.

  Unlike · 1 · 18 mins
• 

  Brigid O'Carroll Walsh Thank you for this extensive yet simple reply Michael Croft - I have saved this post in my Evernote!

  Like · 1 min · Edited

   

  Footnote:  Readers will find a definition of ISDS here. And more information is here.