Top candy sellers make big bucks during Halloween by exploiting people and the planet and our purchases are only helping them succeed
We spend over half a billion dollars on Halloween candy each year, generating big bucks for large corporations that are more frightening than the holiday itself. Child labour, unfair treatment of workers and detrimental environmental impacts are just some of the unethical practices the top winners of Halloween such as Mars, Nestle, Lindt and Hershey, participate in.
Several high-profile cases have revealed chocolate and candy manufacturers indirectly or directly benefit from forced and child labor. For example, cocoa plantations in West Africa, which supply major chocolate makers including Mars, Nestle and Hershey, have faced allegations of using child labor in hazardous conditions.
More specifically, excessive plastic packaging used by these corporations also contributes to global plastic pollution crisis, especially since they often use non-biodegradable materials that end up in landfills or oceans.
The palm oil industry, frequently used in the production of chocolate products, has also been significantly associated with deforestation and habitat destruction. Many of the aforementioned companies source palm oil from unsustainable suppliers, such as those involved in illegal land clearing, further contributing to this issue.
On top of this, there have also been instances of workplace discrimination and unfair compensation among these corporations. Employees, particularly in lower-wage positions, may experience wage disparities and discriminatory practices based on their gender, ethnicity or other factors.
While we enjoy a short-lived moment of joy, indulging in the sweet treats of Halloween, these companies get away with exploiting other communities across the world, depriving individuals of their human rights.
While we enjoy a short-lived moment of joy, indulging in the sweet treats of Halloween, these companies get away with exploiting other communities across the world, depriving individuals of their human rights.
As consumers, we need to recognize that when we support these companies through our high volumes of purchases at Halloween, this choice ultimately drives their sales, profits and their ability to maintain their unethical operations into the future. Our decisions contribute to the consistent perpetuation of these business practices, and we have the power to hold these major corporations accountable.
Although creating such large-scale change seems daunting, it’s our collective efforts that matter. For one, consider doing some research into and choosing ethical brands as much as possible. Prioritize businesses with transparent and ethical practices, such as those that support fair labour, use sustainable materials and have a commitment to social responsibility/ESG.
In addition, take the opportunity to support local businesses. Opt for local costume shops, bakeries, and artisans who often maintain higher ethical and quality standards due to their smaller and community-focused scale.
To further prevent corporations from perpetuating harms, express your concerns to businesses that may be involved in these unethical practices. Consumer feedback can lead to positive change and get more people involved in supporting the greater cause.
While Halloween is meant to be an exciting break during the fall season, it is also a day to reflect on the consequences of our consumer choices.
By being conscious consumers, we can send a message to businesses that we value ethical and responsible practices. Let’s focus on enjoying Halloween with awareness and ensure that the season's treats and tricks don't come at the expense of people, the planet or our own ethical values.
By being conscious consumers, we can send a message to businesses that we value ethical and responsible practices. Let’s focus on enjoying Halloween with awareness and ensure that the season's treats and tricks don't come at the expense of people, the planet or our own ethical values.
By: Balsam Fasih
An investigative article published by Canadaland on Oct. 15 alleges that the WE Charity has partnerships with at least three corporations that use child labour, including Hershey’s, Kellogg’s and Unilever.
While it is not explicit in Canadaland’s investigation, it appears that their claim that Hershey’s uses child labour stems from a 2015 lawsuit filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. This lawsuit accuses Hershey’s of using cocoa beans from West African suppliers that use child labour.
In Nov. 2016, Amnesty International published a report that reveals that Kellogg’s and Unilever obtain palm oil from Wilmar International Ltd. Amnesty International investigated some of Wilmar’s plantations and discovered several human rights abuses, including the use of child labour.
“The Kellogg Company (Kellogg’s), Nestlé and Reckitt Benckiser are sourcing palm oil from refineries where the palm oil has been directly supplied or, at the very least, been mixed with palm oil produced on plantations where there are severe labour rights abuses,” reads the Amnesty International report.
The report suggests it is “highly likely” that Unilever uses palm oil from plantations where there are labour rights abuses.
The We charity logo has been used to promote some of these companies’ products. Included in the Canadaland report is an image of a Hershey’s chocolate display at a Walgreens store.
The display features an image of a smiling African child, the Me to We logo and the phrase “Together with Hershey’s, Walgreens helps children here and everywhere.”
The specific Walgreens locations where such displays were found is not mentioned in the report. However, Canadaland linked the display to a 2018 brand cause campaign for Hershey’s via the Me to We ‘Track Your Impact’ website.
Adriana Skaljin and Krupali Shah, co-presidents of Free the Children McMaster, maintain that their club does not work with any of We’s corporate partners. Instead, the club focuses on contributing to the Hamilton community and supporting education initiatives in India.
“I definitely see the need to explore this issue more and gather details on the partnerships from credible sources. Until that is done, however, I do not think we can discredit any work done by We charity and its association thus far,” said Shah.
Both Skaljin and Shah state that their involvement with We has had a positive impact on their lives.
“As someone who felt like just a small person in a world of possibility for change, We Charity empowered me to believe in my capability for making a difference,” said Skaljin.
As for the McMaster Students Union clubs department’s take on the controversy, MSU clubs administrator Josephine Liauw says that clubs are prohibited from using their financial allocation to make direct donations to any third party, including charities.
“Individual clubs are at liberty to manage their respective relationships with external organizations as they see fit, provided that all club conduct is governed by their respective constitution and remains in compliance with the Clubs Operating Policy,” said Liauw.
In response to the accusations, We served Canadaland with a notice of libel. The notice announces We’s intent to pursue legal action against Canadaland for defamation.
We accuses the news organization of using an altered image of a Kellogg’s cereal box featuring the Me to We logo as evidence of We’s partnership with Kellogg’s, which We calls a “non-existent partnership,” in addition to using unnamed sources in the report.
The organization is also demanding the retraction of the article and asks that any questions about the case be directed to info@we.org.
