Why don't they go after house builders? Don't they use more wood than the Palm Oil Industry??

Why don't they go after house builders? Don't they use more wood than the Palm Oil Industry??

 

I think the issue at hand is the source of the products (tropical forests that are home to some of the most endangered mammals on the planet).

Why don't they go after house builders? Don't they use more wood than the Palm Oil Industry??

 

Very little lumber felled in the U.S. is old-growth.  There is virtually zero old-growth left in the eastern U.S. with the exception of Maine and a few sections of the Smokey Mountains.  The lumber used in homes is mostly pine and Douglass Fir grown in the Pacific Northwest. 

 

In jungle areas as in North America once a forest is cleared and turned into agricultural land, the original plants and trees can never grow back, at least not in the same proportions.  Meanwhile, the shrinking jungle areas cause apex predators and other animals to behave in unusual ways, upsetting their role in the food chain. And if apex predators are eradicated, it has far-reaching ramifications on plant life and other animals. 

 

If you look on Google Earth around the Southeast Pacific, you will see that only the jungles in mountainous areas remain.  Typically all of the flatland along the coast of Sumatra, Burma, etc. has been destroyed.  This is very similar to what happened to the Smokey Mountains -- absolutely everything around it for hundreds of miles was logged until the plug was pulled on the lumber companies in the early 1920s.  Within 10 years they would have logged the mountaintops. 

 

 

Greenpeace does a good, reasonable job. They are very moderate considering the wide spectrum of environmental groups.

 

And the best part of Greenpeace is the business community generally listens to them. Their antics are more of a "Hey, we noticed you do ________ and want you to change it". So companies do it, because they aren't being obnoxious about it. Just a simple guerilla marketing tactic for a few hours and done. No long-term pain.

 

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

^I'm presuming this post is a satire?

Greenpeace does a good, reasonable job. They are very moderate considering the wide spectrum of environmental groups.

 

And the best part of Greenpeace is the business community generally listens to them. Their antics are more of a "Hey, we noticed you do ________ and want you to change it". So companies do it, because they aren't being obnoxious about it. Just a simple guerilla marketing tactic for a few hours and done. No long-term pain.

 

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

 

Seriously? I'd rather people do what they did than drive drunk. A drunk driver only rots in jail if they actually kill someone.

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

 

Which do you mean, the loggers or the protesters?

Greenpeace does a good, reasonable job. They are very moderate considering the wide spectrum of environmental groups.

no and no, they are not moderates.

I gave them some cash once & when I started reading their newsletters I realized what crackpots they are. Greenpeace, HSUS, PETA are ridiculous.

Greenpeace does a good, reasonable job. They are very moderate considering the wide spectrum of environmental groups.

 

And the best part of Greenpeace is the business community generally listens to them. Their antics are more of a "Hey, we noticed you do ________ and want you to change it". So companies do it, because they aren't being obnoxious about it. Just a simple guerilla marketing tactic for a few hours and done. No long-term pain.

 

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

 

Seriously? I'd rather people do what they did than drive drunk. A drunk driver only rots in jail if they actually kill someone.

 

What they did was a terrorist act. A drunk driver deserves to be in jail if they cause physical damage to a property too. That is a different argument for a different time though.  Just because you don't agree with P*G does not give you the right to destroy their property in a criminally malicious way as part of your demonstration. Free speech has a responsibility aspect to it and the problem is that these idiots will use this to create a bigger splash in the future if they don't see there are serious consequences for their actions. As to the individuals involved here, it will suck to be them, but hopefully a long jail sentence will deter future members from such actions.

^I'm presuming this post is a satire?

 

Absolutely not. I would hope you have enough common sense that you don't sympathize with those fools.

Greenpeace does a good, reasonable job. They are very moderate considering the wide spectrum of environmental groups.

 

And the best part of Greenpeace is the business community generally listens to them. Their antics are more of a "Hey, we noticed you do ________ and want you to change it". So companies do it, because they aren't being obnoxious about it. Just a simple guerilla marketing tactic for a few hours and done. No long-term pain.

 

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

 

Seriously? I'd rather people do what they did than drive drunk. A drunk driver only rots in jail if they actually kill someone.

 

What they did was a terrorist act. A drunk driver deserves to be in jail if they cause physical damage to a property too. That is a different argument for a different time though.  Just because you don't agree with P*G does not give you the right to destroy their property in a criminally malicious way as part of your demonstration. Free speech has a responsibility aspect to it and the problem is that these idiots will use this to create a bigger splash in the future if they don't see there are serious consequences for their actions. As to the individuals involved here, it will suck to be them, but hopefully a long jail sentence will deter future members from such actions.

 

Absolutely NOT!

 

"Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes."

 

These people are not terrorists.

 

They risked their own lives, trespassed, and caused property damage. The punishment should be equivalent to those charges. A large fine to cover the court costs and property damage and pay some damages to P&G.

^This.

 

Absolutely not. I would hope you have enough common sense that you don't sympathize with those fools.

 

It was your response to their actions, not sympathy for their actions.

Greenpeace does a good, reasonable job. They are very moderate considering the wide spectrum of environmental groups.

 

And the best part of Greenpeace is the business community generally listens to them. Their antics are more of a "Hey, we noticed you do ________ and want you to change it". So companies do it, because they aren't being obnoxious about it. Just a simple guerilla marketing tactic for a few hours and done. No long-term pain.

 

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

 

Seriously? I'd rather people do what they did than drive drunk. A drunk driver only rots in jail if they actually kill someone.

 

What they did was a terrorist act. A drunk driver deserves to be in jail if they cause physical damage to a property too. That is a different argument for a different time though.  Just because you don't agree with P*G does not give you the right to destroy their property in a criminally malicious way as part of your demonstration. Free speech has a responsibility aspect to it and the problem is that these idiots will use this to create a bigger splash in the future if they don't see there are serious consequences for their actions. As to the individuals involved here, it will suck to be them, but hopefully a long jail sentence will deter future members from such actions.

 

Absolutely NOT!

 

"Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes."

 

These people are not terrorists.

 

They risked their own lives, trespassed, and caused property damage. The punishment should be equivalent to those charges. A large fine to cover the court costs and property damage and pay some damages to P&G.

 

"Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes."

 

lets see, in this case, while they did not use violence to accomplish those means, they did create panic in the area. Their actions were in reckless disregard for the safety of those around them. People could have been seriously injured in the act or from the results of their actions.

Ryan - Terrorism in the sense of someone strapping a bomb to themselves, no it is no where near that level and you are right is not in that ballpark. However, given the heightened sense of security around here since 9/11, the thought of people breaking into a building to cause criminal mischief, no matter whether their intentions are non-violent can cause an extreme amount of panic by those on the ground or in the building and hence it is to a certain level terroristic.

 

They need to be punished hard for this and spend jail time for these actions. It is not the first time they have done this and they need to think twice before pulling this crap again.

 

Okay, so what these nine people did was worse than a corporation paying impoverished people on the other side of the world meager wages to tear down jungles that are important for the health of the atmosphere and where rare animals live?  I'm confused. 

Because some white-collar Americans were scared for a little bit.

Let's round up graffiti artists and send them to Guantanamo.

Okay, so what these nine people did was worse than a corporation paying impoverished people on the other side of the world meager wages to tear down jungles that are important for the health of the atmosphere and where rare animals live?  I'm confused. 

 

It's not a matter of which is worse.  There's no trade-off here.  P&G is an environmentally conscious company, but obviously still has some room for improvement.  Speculating about what their suppliers may or may not be doing doesn't invalidate the point that Brutus_buckeye is trying to make.

Okay, so what these nine people did was worse than a corporation paying impoverished people on the other side of the world meager wages to tear down jungles that are important for the health of the atmosphere and where rare animals live?  I'm confused. 

 

Jake - first of all, P&G is not paying impoverished wages to tear down jungles, that is Greenpeace propaganda. Palm oil is a commodity and sold on a commodities market, P&G pays the market price for it. These farmers choose to tear down their jungles to earn money based on the going rate for the commodity. So if these local farmers are acting illegally in their country, then it is up to the laws of their country to be enforced.

 

Greenpeace, essentially acts like a petulant child who acts out and pouts when it does not get its way. To be honest, its act is getting old and tired. The best way to deal with the petulant child is to show it proper punishment such that its actions will not be rewarded. Greenpeace is allowed to have a voice, however, expressing its voice in a negative manner that causes destruction and panic to those around it is not how we do things in a civilized society. When they learn that they are welcome to come back and sit at the adult table.

Are you sure that these "farmers" actually own the land?  Who exactly is tearing down forest on "their" land?  Is it government owned or is it owned by some shady organization registered in the Cayman Islands?  And how could you ever speculate that laborers are being paid well in third-world countries? 

Let me just point out a few facts. If you want a source, I just completed a degree in Logistics last year. We discussed corporate sustainability, Greenpeace, and social responsibility at great length. My logistics class specifically was instructed by one of the leading logistics researchers in the nation.

 

 

1.  Every company is responsible for every aspect of their end product. That means for P&G, they are responsible for both the actions they take personally and the action of the suppliers from which they choose to source products (and as data collecting technology is becoming more sophisticated, ultimately companies are becoming responsible for the products their supplier's suppliers products etc.).

 

2.  To become a supplier for a company like P&G, there are a lot of hurdles a company must clear. A full financial disclosure, frequent inspection of production facilities, etc. It is a contractual relationship - in a way, like a marriage. And in turn, P&G purchasing agents can only purchase from approved vendors. But sometimes vendors slip up. Who gets the ultimate blame? P&G. Their purchasing agents, inspectors, QC people, etc should have been on top of this.

 

3.  These mistakes happen a lot. Remember when Mattel had to recall a ton of their toys in 2007? The reason why was because one of their paint suppliers (a Chinese company which apparently did not have great quality standards) decided to put lead in some of their paint. Mattel was unaware of the issue until their internal testing caught the lead paint. Their supplier dropped the ball, who ended up being responsible? Mattel. Some holds true for P&G.

 

4.  Greenpeace is moderate. They could go around like PETA and throw blood on people, but they don't. Instead they do large banners, videos, and other forms of Guerrila Marketing. For more info, here is a great academic journal article detailing Greenpeace's moderate strategy now (and its change from its more radical strategies of the 1990s)

http://journal.unair.ac.id/filerPDF/global08%20ir.pdf

^I would argue that moderate groups don't pull a B&E on a company's headquarters. 

Where was the "panic"?  I work downtown in an office building with a dead-on view of this stunt.  I certainly didn't see any "panic" in the building here or in the streets downtown. 

 

 

^You have no idea what an employee felt when their windows got blocked.

What sort of fool wouldn't recognize this for being a publicity stunt, not the activities of some sort of militant group?

 

Also, today I heard that the girl who zip-lined in the tiger suit was at Neon's the night before...in the tiger suit. 

P&G inks massive deal to sell 43 brands

Barrett J. Brunsman - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Procter & Gamble accepted Coty Inc.'s $12.5 billion offer to acquire 43 of the Cincinnati-based company's beauty brands, including Covergirl, Max Factor and Wella Professional.

 

"This represents a significant step forward in the work to focus our portfolio on 10 categories and 65 brands," said A.G. Lafley, CEO of P&G (NYSE: PG). "We have leading global brand positions in these categories, consumer preferred products and leading brands in the largest markets. These businesses and brands have historically grown faster and have been more profitable than the balance. We expect these 10 categories to grow and create value as we focus the energy and resources of the company exclusively on them.”

 

P&G expects to do a split-off or spin-off transaction involving the brands. The company would prefer to do a deal called a Reverse Morris Trust Transaction, in which Procter & Gamble shareholders could exchange P&G shares for shares of Coty.

 

Cont

Tomorrow we find out if Nelson Peltz is elected to the board of directors.  Here's to hoping he is not elected!

P&G staves off activist investor in proxy battle

 

Procter & Gamble Co. shareholders today voted against electing activist investor Nelson Peltz to a seat on the board of the company, which spent about $35 million in a successful effort to stave off his proxy challenge.

 

Peltz, the CEO of Trian Fund Management, lost the election, according to preliminary results from IVS Associates, a Delaware-based firm that specializes in independent tabulation and certification of voting results. A final tally of votes will be released at a later date.

 

Peltz said he won't concede and is awaiting the official results that could take weeks.

 

"We should have won or lost by 1 percent," he said.

 

Cont

 

 

Others:

 

CNBC - P&G says shareholders reject Peltz's bid for board seat by slim margin, activist says vote a dead heat

Wall Street Journal - P&G Says Trian’s Nelson Peltz Has Lost Bid for Board Seat; He Disagrees

I have a question. They say P&G has problems with not making enough profit. Didn't these same people sale alot of brands over the years so that cut into their revenue and profits. Where did the money from those sales go??? Their pockets?

 

^ When you hear profit, they mean operating profits. Sales of assets, while profitable for P&G are one time events and therefore do not affect the operating profits of the company.

 

What investors are looking for is higher profit margins or greater revenue growth on the existing products.

 

Sometimes the investor will be happier with lower profits and more long term growth potential than a higher profit with no growth.

 

^Yeah, I think they probably weren't getting the ROI they wanted on those products. 

 

Maybe they "ran their course", there wasn't any more they thought they could add to them without spending a ton of money on R&D, wanted to focus more on their core competencies and high growth companies/lines which they could improve the profit margins, etc.

Well that guy won the proxy vote.

Well that guy won the proxy vote.

 

By 1/600th of 1%. 

 

So now the company will be broken up and we will lose the HQ. 

A dark, dark day for P&G and Cincinnati both; need I say more?

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/nelson-peltz-will-join-pgs-board-of-directors-after-all 

A dark, dark day for P&G and Cincinnati both; need I say more?

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/nelson-peltz-will-join-pgs-board-of-directors-after-all 

 

I agree this is bad news but one of the things I don’t get is, isn’t there like 12 other board members? How can this guy come in and start making moves on his own?

^Because the others will sell out. 

He didn't even win the proxy vote but they let him on the board after he agreed to not fight to break up the company or move it out of Cincy.  You can back away from the ledge now...

He didn't even win the proxy vote but they let him on the board after he agreed to not fight to break up the company or move it out of Cincy.  You can back away from the ledge now...

I would like to think that, but I can't be so sure.

 

P&G management realized that if they didn't seat Peltz this year, they would face him again next year - so, rather than squandering millions of additional dollars in attempts to block him and rile hordes of greedy shareholders even more, they simply caved in. All along Peltz made his intentions known: he was going to be seated or else! However, he vocalized it so smoothly by saying all those reassuring things he knew both P&G and the public wanted to hear.

 

Now that this contemptible Wall Street opportunist has been given entry into P&G's bank vault and safety deposit boxes, I'm afraid that we'll witness what his ulterior motives really are. The article below makes it pretty clear what Peltz's MO really is - like so many other big, but vulnerable companies before it, P&G is in deep, deep trouble...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/business/dealbook/nelson-peltzs-play-for-pampg-honorable-intentions.html

Aaron Renn wrote recently about how he doesn't expect P&G to move out of Cincinnati, but instead to start a new office in a bigger city where it will relocate some of its executives and perhaps hire creative people that they would have a hard time attracting to Cincinnati.

^i take issue with that article- is there really a person out there that would turn down a boatload of money because they refuse to come to Cincinnati that’s so much more “talented” than the next person in line that would come here? These writers have their heads up their rears with this “creative class” stuff sometimes. Also I think it over-emphasizes the difference one person can make in arenas where sweeping macro forces are at play.

 

Also in the case of a consumer products company like P&G would it really be more helpful to have the executives in an elite enclave  like New York or London where they are more disconnected from the lifestyle and habits of the average person?

 

Aaron Renn wrote recently about how he doesn't expect P&G to move out of Cincinnati, but instead to start a new office in a bigger city where it will relocate some of its executives and perhaps hire creative people that they would have a hard time attracting to Cincinnati.

 

The comments on that article are quite depressing.

In my experience with friends in the creative industries, they tend to move away because of the opportunities in other cities. Because New York, Denver, San Francisco, etc have all of these creative jobs, that's how you move up in your industry. If Cincinnati was loaded with advertising agencies, graphic design firms, etc. they could continue to advance in their career and stay in Cincinnati. Yes, these cities are "cooler" than Cincinnati, but many people I know would rather stay here, but can't because there are only one or two competing companies in the area, and the only way to move up is to relocate and possibly return at a later date with more experience.

Peltz starts turning the screw:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/06/07/p-g-board-reportedly-considering-peltz-shake-up.html

P&G board reportedly considering Peltz shake-up plan

 

 

Activist Investor Nelson Peltz, who joined the board of Procter & Gamble Co. on March 1, reportedly said today that his fellow directors are considering his proposal to slash by about 90 percent P&G’s 10,000 or so corporate employees.

 

Peltz, the CEO of Trian Fund Management, previously shared his desire to trim the ranks during a proxy battle for a seat on the board of the Cincinnati-based maker of consumer goods such as Head & Shoulders shampoo (NYSE:PG).

 

On Thursday, Peltz told CNBC market analyst Jim Cramer that New York-based Trian’s proposal “is under very serious consideration.”

 

P&G stock was trading at $76.31 early this afternoon, up 2.6 percent from the previous close of $74.35. The value of shares has ranged from $70.73 to an all-time high of $94.67 over the past 52 weeks. Today's comments by Peltz may have prompted the bump of nearly $2 a share.

 

“Our goal is to say we’re going to have under 1,000 people in corporate, (and) under that you have three global business units,” Peltz reportedly said when questioned by Cramer during the Deal’s Corporate Governance Conference on Thursday.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/06/07/p-g-board-reportedly-considering-peltz-shake-up.html

Eh, I watched the interview, thinking he is mostly bluffing and saying in essence: start selling more direct to consumers products

Quote

and Nelson Peltz, a billionaire investor who hosted a $10 million fund-raiser for the president’s 2020 campaign on Saturday, were among those who suggested that the president pardon him.

 

Peltz is the worst of the worst.  If they can get Trump re-elected they know they can get away with anything.   

 

Nelson Peltz donating money to Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, Alexandria Orcasio-Cortez's primary opponent:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-supporters-pumping-thousands-into-aocs-democratic-primary-opponents-coffers-report

I don't support them. I am glad P&G is an Ohio company, but I have no need for things that retain fake scents for for an eternity. I have lost confidence in their products because of the emphasis on scent that seemingly never goes away.