This article shows how Mothercare Plc are trying to ignore the fact that their sponsorship of the Baby Show is helping to fund the global trade in weapons, and that they are fully aware of it.
In the ongoing saga of the Baby Show [
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9448] and its organisers, Clarion Events, being the very same company that organises the DSEi arms fair, the campaigners seem to have hit an interesting, but not insurmountable brick wall. There is an ongoing effort to persuade the various sponsors of the Baby Show to pull out, in view of the contradiction between the care of children (although, obviously, the Baby Fair is essentially a marketing spectacle) and the insertion of large pieces of schrapnel in their bodies caused by the “legitimate” weapons that are touted at the DSEi arms fair. The sponsors are pretending to listen, and then responding with pro forma letters that simply restate their social and environmental policies, ignoring the issues at hand; not willing in any way to give up such a lucrative sponsorship position.
Mothercare have a long history as one of the leading lights in the baby and child retail market. They pride themselves on their positive image, and make great efforts to present themselves as an ethical and responsible company. With a market value of nearly £400 million and an annual profit of over £40 million, they are not a small player in the baby and child market: they have a lot to lose, should their reputation suffer.
Mothercare are a major sponsor of the Baby Show, and have been for many years.
With this in mind, I wrote to Mothercare (Justine Allister, Head of PR) asking some pertinent questions, particularly related to the work of Clarion, and Mothercare’s association with the Clarion organised Baby Show:
--------------------
From: Keith Farnish
To: Allister, Justine
Subject: Baby Show / Clarion Issues
Dear Justine
Thank you for discussing the involvement of Mothercare with the Clarion organised Baby Show ( http://www.thebabyshow.co.uk/nec-birmingham/unbeatable-shopping/mothercare/), with me today. As I made clear, a number of people I have been in contact with are deeply unhappy with the pro-forma response of Mothercare to their concerns. As I see it, there are three main issues:
1) That Clarion, as part of their business, operate the DSEi ( http://www.dsei.co.uk/) arms fair, selling weapons to governments and private security companies.
2) That, regardless of the legitimacy of this trade, there are thousands of “collateral” child deaths and injuries every year caused by the equipment sold at these arms fairs.
3) That Mothercare are legitimising such activity, by exhibiting at a show organised by a company that is indirectly responsible for these “collateral” deaths.
With formidable irony, the Spring 2010 Baby Show will be held in the very same hall that hosts DSEi.
For the purposes of my piece, could you please answer the following questions:
1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?
2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?
3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT ( http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not?
Yours sincerely
Keith Farnish
--------------------
The response took a little time: “with regards to your enquiry below, we take your concerns very seriously so I am sure you understand that this will take slightly longer for me to get back to you, in order for me to speak to the relevant members of staff. I will endeavour to get back to you with a response tomorrow morning.”
If I had been the kind of person who hopes, I would have hoped for a positive outcome given the time taken and seriousness with which the response was being dealt. I had a response one day after the promised date — it was not what I would have hoped for.
--------------------
From: Pirie, Annique
To: Keith Farnish
Cc:
mothercare@brunswickgroup.com ; sandra@sandrabull.co.uk ; Allister, Justine
Subject: Mothercare Response
Justine is at an external meeting today and has asked me to forward the following in response to your enquiry on her behalf.
Many thanks
Annique
—–
Dear Mr Farnish,
Thank you for your enquiry in regard to Mothercare’s position on the Baby Show. Taking your 3 questions one by one:
1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?
a.. Mothercare takes its ethical commitments extremely seriously and both our policy and targets in the area of Corporate Responsibility are published each year in our Annual Report & Accounts and on our web site www.mothercare plc.com. We are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative and have initiated projects with, for example, governments and NGO’s in India to help find ways to improve the lives of workers in our supply chain. This includes the building of a maternity wing in a local hospital in South India. Our Foundation provides substantial support each year to many important charities which support good health and well-being of mums-to-be, new mums and their children; special baby-care needs and premature births; and other parenting initiatives relating to family well-being.
2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?
a.. It is wrong to imply that we give indirect approval for the sale of arms. We do not participate in the DSEi exhibition, so any concerns relating to that event, or any other event in which we do not participate, should be addressed to the organiser, Clarion Events. Mothercare is a responsible company and has participated in the Baby Show for nearly ten years, alongside some 200 or so fellow retailers, brands and manufacturers in the parenting sector. As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children, tens of thousands of visitors to the Baby Show have high expectations of experiencing our brand at the event.
3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT ( http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not?
a.. Mothercare takes into account the views and concerns of all relevant, law abiding organisations in framing and monitoring its ethical and social responsibility policies.
Regards
Justine
--------------------
So, essentially, Mothercare are not concerned that they give money to a company that organises arms fairs, and seem to be able to wash their hands of this link entirely. Their hands certainly need washing, given all the blood that is on them.
I sent the following response, which has yet to garner a reply:
--------------------
Dear Justine (via Annique)
Thank you for your advertisement for Mothercare (”As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children”). I will infer from your response that Mothercare takes no responsibility for its commercial links with Clarion and, while continuing to support Clarion financially really doesn’t care what they get up to in their own time. Saying “Mothercare is a responsible company” doesn’t make Mothercare a responsible company (note, that this is a typical Greenwashing response as elucidated by the big oil and coal companies, e.g. “Exxon really care about the planet”), it simply states your belief.
The simple fact is, Mothercare — through its continued links with Clarion Events — condones Clarion’s portfolio of events: if Mothercare did not condone the sale and, by extension, use of weapons that kill children (note this article only today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8096374.stm), then it would not be involved in the Baby Show whilst it is organised by Clarion. This will be my line of discussion in the article, which is logically substantial.
I will also state that Mothercare is not willing to engage with CAAT.
Regards
Keith
--------------------
Readers are strongly encouraged to contact Justine Allister (mailto: justine.allister@mothercare.com) at Mothercare, letting them know why it is morally indefensible to ignore where their money is going and what it is being used for — especially if that money is being used to promote the trade in those “legitimate” weapons that happen to kill thousands of children every year.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/9448] and its organisers, Clarion Events, being the very same company that organises the DSEi arms fair, the campaigners seem to have hit an interesting, but not insurmountable brick wall. There is an ongoing effort to persuade the various sponsors of the Baby Show to pull out, in view of the contradiction between the care of children (although, obviously, the Baby Fair is essentially a marketing spectacle) and the insertion of large pieces of schrapnel in their bodies caused by the “legitimate” weapons that are touted at the DSEi arms fair. The sponsors are pretending to listen, and then responding with pro forma letters that simply restate their social and environmental policies, ignoring the issues at hand; not willing in any way to give up such a lucrative sponsorship position. Mothercare have a long history as one of the leading lights in the baby and child retail market. They pride themselves on their positive image, and make great efforts to present themselves as an ethical and responsible company. With a market value of nearly £400 million and an annual profit of over £40 million, they are not a small player in the baby and child market: they have a lot to lose, should their reputation suffer.
Mothercare are a major sponsor of the Baby Show, and have been for many years.
With this in mind, I wrote to Mothercare (Justine Allister, Head of PR) asking some pertinent questions, particularly related to the work of Clarion, and Mothercare’s association with the Clarion organised Baby Show:
--------------------
From: Keith Farnish
To: Allister, Justine
Subject: Baby Show / Clarion Issues
Dear Justine
Thank you for discussing the involvement of Mothercare with the Clarion organised Baby Show (
http://www.thebabyshow.co.uk/nec-birmingham/unbeatable-shopping/mothercare/), with me today. As I made clear, a number of people I have been in contact with are deeply unhappy with the pro-forma response of Mothercare to their concerns. As I see it, there are three main issues: 1) That Clarion, as part of their business, operate the DSEi (
http://www.dsei.co.uk/) arms fair, selling weapons to governments and private security companies. 2) That, regardless of the legitimacy of this trade, there are thousands of “collateral” child deaths and injuries every year caused by the equipment sold at these arms fairs.
3) That Mothercare are legitimising such activity, by exhibiting at a show organised by a company that is indirectly responsible for these “collateral” deaths.
With formidable irony, the Spring 2010 Baby Show will be held in the very same hall that hosts DSEi.
For the purposes of my piece, could you please answer the following questions:
1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?
2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?
3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT (
http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not? Yours sincerely
Keith Farnish
--------------------
The response took a little time: “with regards to your enquiry below, we take your concerns very seriously so I am sure you understand that this will take slightly longer for me to get back to you, in order for me to speak to the relevant members of staff. I will endeavour to get back to you with a response tomorrow morning.”
If I had been the kind of person who hopes, I would have hoped for a positive outcome given the time taken and seriousness with which the response was being dealt. I had a response one day after the promised date — it was not what I would have hoped for.
--------------------
From: Pirie, Annique
To: Keith Farnish
Cc:
mothercare@brunswickgroup.com ; sandra@sandrabull.co.uk ; Allister, Justine Subject: Mothercare Response
Justine is at an external meeting today and has asked me to forward the following in response to your enquiry on her behalf.
Many thanks
Annique
—–
Dear Mr Farnish,
Thank you for your enquiry in regard to Mothercare’s position on the Baby Show. Taking your 3 questions one by one:
1) What is Mothercare’s policy, if any, regarding its relationships with companies that have morally questionable activities?
a.. Mothercare takes its ethical commitments extremely seriously and both our policy and targets in the area of Corporate Responsibility are published each year in our Annual Report & Accounts and on our web site www.mothercare plc.com. We are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative and have initiated projects with, for example, governments and NGO’s in India to help find ways to improve the lives of workers in our supply chain. This includes the building of a maternity wing in a local hospital in South India. Our Foundation provides substantial support each year to many important charities which support good health and well-being of mums-to-be, new mums and their children; special baby-care needs and premature births; and other parenting initiatives relating to family well-being.
2) How are Mothercare able to market themselves as a responsible company, given their indirect approval of the sale of arms that, regardless of legitimacy, will be the cause of child death and injury?
a.. It is wrong to imply that we give indirect approval for the sale of arms. We do not participate in the DSEi exhibition, so any concerns relating to that event, or any other event in which we do not participate, should be addressed to the organiser, Clarion Events. Mothercare is a responsible company and has participated in the Baby Show for nearly ten years, alongside some 200 or so fellow retailers, brands and manufacturers in the parenting sector. As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children, tens of thousands of visitors to the Baby Show have high expectations of experiencing our brand at the event.
3) Are Mothercare prepared to work with relevant organisations, including CAAT (
http://www.caat.org.uk/events/Baby_Show_2009.php), to effect the removal of Clarion in their role as organiser of The Baby Show, and if not, why not? a.. Mothercare takes into account the views and concerns of all relevant, law abiding organisations in framing and monitoring its ethical and social responsibility policies.
Regards
Justine
--------------------
So, essentially, Mothercare are not concerned that they give money to a company that organises arms fairs, and seem to be able to wash their hands of this link entirely. Their hands certainly need washing, given all the blood that is on them.
I sent the following response, which has yet to garner a reply:
--------------------
Dear Justine (via Annique)
Thank you for your advertisement for Mothercare (”As the UK’s number one specialist retailer for mums to be and parents of young children”). I will infer from your response that Mothercare takes no responsibility for its commercial links with Clarion and, while continuing to support Clarion financially really doesn’t care what they get up to in their own time. Saying “Mothercare is a responsible company” doesn’t make Mothercare a responsible company (note, that this is a typical Greenwashing response as elucidated by the big oil and coal companies, e.g. “Exxon really care about the planet”), it simply states your belief.
The simple fact is, Mothercare — through its continued links with Clarion Events — condones Clarion’s portfolio of events: if Mothercare did not condone the sale and, by extension, use of weapons that kill children (note this article only today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8096374.stm), then it would not be involved in the Baby Show whilst it is organised by Clarion. This will be my line of discussion in the article, which is logically substantial. I will also state that Mothercare is not willing to engage with CAAT.
Regards
Keith
--------------------
Readers are strongly encouraged to contact Justine Allister (mailto:
justine.allister@mothercare.com) at Mothercare, letting them know why it is morally indefensible to ignore where their money is going and what it is being used for — especially if that money is being used to promote the trade in those “legitimate” weapons that happen to kill thousands of children every year. 
Homepage: