How dare they take the rewards of starting a business, financing it with their own money, working hard to build up outlets and supporting the growth during the early years when it produced no income.

We the public demand they receive no benefit for the ideas, investment and work.

green & blacks > cadburys > schweppes > coca-cola

coca-cola = ethical trading?

1998: "Cadbury Schweppes plc has reached agreement to sell its soft drinks brands outside the USA to The Coca-Cola Company, for a consideration of 1.85bn (£1.12bn). The current transaction excludes South Africa and France."

anti coca-cola campaigns:

 http://killercoke.org/
 http://www.indiaresource.org/

So goodbye Green and Blacks
No more Maya Gold
No more of you and your centralisation
To the chocoholic with a conscience, you're gone

"..... plan to run the company,in which it has had a 5%stake since 2002,as an independent business."

If you are a big player in a business category and there appears to be potential in some segment of the market off the main track you have two possible strategies to profit form this niche market and also to protect yourself shouldl this segment grow to become an important share of the entire category. You can either.......

a) Start your own division to specialize in this niche.
b) Buy a going concern

The reality is that "a" is somewhat risky because your people lack expereince with this specialized niche compared to the palyers currentl;y in that game. That risk factor means that it may make more sense to do "b" even if this entails paying a hefty premium. You usually do NOT want to do other than treat this as an independent investment under its own experienced management -- after all, that experience and brand leadership in the niche why you were willing to pay a premium.

For the point of view of the owners of the buy out target it would be silly for them not to be willing to sell if they are being offered a substantial premium above what their company is worth.

Green and Black's only use Fairtrade chocolate in one of their bars, Maya Gold, the rest is not Fairtrade, check the labels, there's no Fairtrade logo.

I think that G+B's have done an amazing bit of "greenwash" over the years, the public's perception being that they are a Fairtrade company, the Guardian reader's "ethical" chocolate of choice, when in fact they are not.

When I found out 2 years ago they weren't Fairtrade I ditched them for real Fairtrade choccy.

Good luck to them and Cadbury's, they deserve each other.

For more info on Green & Blacks and the liberal bullshitters conscience salving ( have your chocolate and eat it? ). An article published in the Guardian Weekend ( ooh the postmodern irony )explores this con job:-

"The UK taxpayer supports Green & Black's venture in Toledo via a £225,000 grant from the Department for International Development, intended to help the expansion of cocoa growing in the area. Yet when you consider that EU tariffs ensure the greater part of cocoa profits accrue to Europe, and calculate that VAT raises 28p from every bar of Maya Gold, against 6p for the growers, the net benefit is balanced heavily in favour of the British and European exchequers. At every turn, Europe profits, while the developing world is milked dry. Whatever the logo on the product, international trade will never be fair, and there's no western government that wants it to become fair."

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1276788,00.html

I have mixed feelings on this, but they’re strong enough for me to pass them on I guess.

Firstly, Green & Black’s chocolate wasn’t fair trade except for the Maya Gold anyway. No matter who owns them, if they want to continue using fairly traded cocoa in this bar they will have to stick to the really rigorous standards of the Fair Trade Foundation or they will lose the symbol. If they want to continue using organic ingredients in their other products they will have to conform to the Soil Association’s standards.

Secondly, I am all for any organisation, big or small, becoming more ethical, and if this move can influence Cadbury-Schweppes or its competitors then I don’t care if it’s used as a marketing tool. This story might make Nestle compete by introducing organic / fair trade products – wouldn’t that be great?? Ummm…not sure that it would stop me boycotting them (mixed feelings as I said).

The difficulty comes in us deciding whether the marketing outweighs the good that is being done. Are they doing enough? At what point do we accept that the coffee brewing in Starbucks this morning was actually fairly traded and therefore has made a difference to the people harvesting the beans? Do we choose the evil McDonalds for a free range egg mcmuffin, or a battery laid egg muffin and a Nescafe coffee from the cute little café down the road? The Body Shop gets criticism that it’s a global company which only cares about profits. In reality, by trading with a community in Namibia to get its Marula Oil (found in every one of its make up products) that whole community has been taken off the poverty line and they now have health care provision, education facilities, regular income from a fairly reliable source.

Large organisations can make so much difference to so many people; I really don’t want to just dismiss them offhand. Of course it’s about profits, an ugly word, but if we want our ugly capitalist society to become more ethical it has to be profitable to be ethical, or only a few will follow suit.

Why does nobody realise the solution is not to support small companies that advertise their green cred and organic chops in order to undermine global conglomerates, but to actually persuade the said conglomerates to adopt fair practices? All the yammering about "selling out" of small companies and unethical megacongomerates just irritates me and does nothing to solve the problem - alright, so you can afford to buy all your goodies from Mr. Small Gourmet/Upmarket Organic Corp at prices twice what the conglomerates offer, but can John Smith out there with three mouths to feed and aging parents to take care of?

And besides, small companies, with enough support, become big companies - and then become run by CEOs who just want to maximise profits, adopting all kinds of unethical operating methods to cut costs - so, the pressure should be placed on the big companies to actually change - perhaps by indicating that you will support other big companies who are greener - not just supporting "independent small producers".

Note however, that I am in no way supporting megaconglomerates - i am just saying you should support a product based on its quality - if a small company makes a good product at a fair price (to you anyway) - go for it! But don't just throw away money on "green creds"- because it honestly doesn't make a difference - fair trade and organic growth only makes an impact when the big players adopt it themselves - so pressure them, not by throwing away money but buying from the other big ones who do - and charge a reasonable price at the same time.

Even leaving the fair trade aspects to one side, it is likely that this takeover would reduce choice and competitive pricing of organic chocolate in the longer term. Cadburies are big and will price G&B products to suit their own needs.

When this deal was announced I wrote to the OFT, who have now said they are investigating it. They have invited comments.

Cadbury's were the founder of ethical trading just not how you know it. Bournville village was built by George Cadbury for all his employees to live in, the houses were superior to working class homes, he also put 60,000 pounds into a pension fund for his employees, a lot of money in 1906 i think ur'll agree.how many companies do you know that would do this for the whole of their workforce out of their own pocket? Through the creation of bournville a lot was put into the economy, jobs were supplied from the factory, the need for small businesses to run in the village (shops, post office, etc) was created and on top of all that George Cadbury supplied medical and dental treatment for his employees and supplied food and entertainent over summer to deprived children. And this is only a handful of the things he has done to support local communities. If Green and Blacks were to be purchased by any major confectionary company, i think they made the right choice in selling it to Cadbury's.

Cadbury has this - see  http://www.cadbury.co.uk/EN/CTB2003/about_chocolate/history_cadbury/social_pioneers/