Question

Chocolate had always been considered an affordable little luxury, associated with romance and celebrations. Therefore in 2000 and 2001, revelations that the production of cocoa in the Côte d’Ivoire involved child slave labor set chocolate companies, consumers, and governments reeling. In the United States, the House of Representatives passed legislation mandating that the FDA create standards to permit companies who could prove that their chocolate was produced without forced labor to label their chocolate “slave-labor free.” To forestall such labeling, the chocolate industry agreed to an international protocol that would give chocolate producers, governments, and local farmers four years to curb abusive practices and put together a process of certification. The stories of child slave labor on Côte d’Ivoire cocoa farms hit Cadbury especially hard. While the company sourced most of its beans from Ghana, the association of chocolate with slavery represented a challenge for the company, since many consumers in the UK associated all chocolate with Cadbury. Furthermore, Cadbury’s culture had been deeply rooted in the religious traditions of the company’s founders, and the organization had paid close attention to the welfare of its workers and its sourcing practices. In 1908, the company had ended a sourcing relationship that depended on slave labor. Now for the first time in nearly 100 years, Cadbury had to take up the question of slavery again. By the 2005 deadline, the chocolate industry was not ready to implement the protocols and asked for two years more to prepare. Privately, many industry officials believed that the kind of certification sought by the protocols was unrealistic. Because cocoa was produced on over a million small farms in western Africa, insuring that all of these farms, most located deep in the bush, complied with child labor laws seemed impossible. Furthermore because beans from numerous small farms were intermingled before shipment, it was difficult to track those produced by farms in compliance with labor standards and those that were not. In 2008, a confrontation between U.S. government officials and the industry seemed imminent. Observers argued that this left Cadbury, a company that had done much to improve its supply chain, in a difficult position.​

Answer 1

wjejejeijeiejeiekejrr

Answer 2

Answer
Case study

• Cadbury Schweppes was the name given to the corporation after a merger. The purpose of the United States government is to verify that whatever certification plan emerges from this process is credible and effective in eliminating abusive child and slave labor practices in the cocoa business, as well as ensuring victim rehabilitation.    

• Companies found it difficult to deviate from the industry consensus due to interlocking distribution and production arrangements between large producers.

• Furthermore, there was a risk that consumers would be unable to distinguish between large chocolate producers, causing the entire chocolate category to suffer. A few tiny businesses had gone against the grain and made organic chocolate.

• Because of its history, the press and the general public were interested in what Cadbury would do. Reporters regularly mentioned Cadbury's lengthy history as an ethical concern whose traditions were anchored in religious values.

• The reporters for The Times of London said in their piece, "As the Cadbury family championed social equality and the abolition of poverty.

• Cadbury moved their cocoa sourcing from Angola, Sao Tome, and other Portuguese colonies to the Gold Coast, now Ghana, in the early 1900s due to worries about slave labour.    

However, with over 55,000 people and a stock market worth of £10 billion, the current Cadbury Schweppes empire is constantly battling to ensure that strong business practices are maintained.

#SPJ3