Legally, Starbucks’ withdrawal is probably on solid footing. For example, Jan Margosian, spokeswoman for Oregon’s Department of Justice consumer protection unit, stated that "there’s not a statute that covers a mistake… The fact that they tried to honor it [the coupon] and it was too much isn’t a violation of consumer-protection laws."

Still, Starbucks may have caused a raised eyebrow or two, at a minimum regarding the question of why an internationally successful and marketing-savvy company didn’t anticipate that the e-mail, even with instructions regarding to whom it could be forwarded, wouldn’t immediately take on a viral life of its own and be shared beyond the originally intended sphere of distribution.

And, as do many large companies, Starbucks has its share of critics (represented in part by the oh-so-subtle I Hate Starbucks blog) and its labor issues (see the IWW Starbucks Workers Union).

Nevertheless, diehard loyalists won’t let the coupon snafu prevent them from flocking to Starbucks to get their fix.

With the company’s new Coffee Conversations podcast debuting today, blogs such as Jim Romenesko’s Starbucks Gossip and Starbucks Everywhere (chronicling Winter’s — yep, that’s his real name — attempt to visit every licensed Starbucks in the world) going strong, and new entries such as the unique Sketchnap (created by a "caffeine-fueled Starbucks’ doodler committed to coffee, napkins and sketching" — check out the pictures, doodles and other stuff) joining in, there’s no reason to believe that the Starbucks brand will take a serious hit.

Update 8/24: After posting the update of 8/22, I e-mailed Ms. Walters, Goodwill of Central Virginia’s Director of Marketing & Communications:

"As promised, I amended my blog post to reflect the information you shared with me. If for some reason there are inaccuracies in my latest update, please let me know so I can correct them immediately."

An e-mail I received from Ms. Walters this morning explained that there are some remaining inaccuracies and that Goodwill would appreciate that they be corrected. These changes mostly concern what the alleged eyewitness told me. It’s important to note that there is a discrepancy between what this individual, who claimed to have been on-site at the time, and Goodwill states — namely that, based on the surveillance video, only the former employee and the private investigator were on-site at the time, thus putting into question the accuracy of what this "eyewitness" allegedly saw and heard. 

As Goodwill is most likely aware, it is common practice, in support of the blogosphere’s spirit of transparency, to correct factual inaccuracies — especially when they are substantive in nature — in such a way that readers can follow both the original "error" and the correction. Furthermore, due to earlier versions of a post being captured electronically, "overwriting" entire posts is not recommended.

Therefore, I’ve attempted to reconfigure the text of the original post to reflect the facts as presented by Ms. Walters via the written edits she submitted to me, in conjunction with the changes made on 8/22. However, I also attempted to stay as true as possible to the story shared with me by the alleged eyewitness in order to accurately report what I was told, keeping in mind that the eyewitness statements are simply one person’s interpretation of what actually occurred.      

First a bit of background. Over the past decade I’ve donated many items to various non-profit organizations, and in the past year to Goodwill of Central Virginia. Most of the time when I stopped at the local donation site a man I’ll call "Joe" helped me. "Joe" had been employed by Goodwill for several years and was well-known in the shopping center where the donation site was located. But yesterday "Joe" wasn’t there.

Here’s what I was told by an eyewitness someone who claimed to be an eyewitness:

A woman came to the donation site with a sob story of how she had just moved into a new place, had little money, and no furniture to put in it. She saw gently used baby equipment at the site and wanted to know if maybe — please — she could take it, even though this wasn’t really allowed.

Now, "Joe" no doubt knew that he should ignore this plea. But after taking pity on the woman, "Joe" relented.    

Shortly thereafter, "Joe" was fired from his position.

So here are the questions, assuming the incident as outlined above is true and accurate:

• Should "Joe" have allowed the woman to have the baby equipment? No, as it wasn’t his to give away.
• But would he have been inclined on his own to give someone these items, without being induced?
• And weren’t "Joe’s" actions in line — in spirit, at least — with Goodwill’s mandate of helping people in need? Goodwill’s position is that "the resale of donated items funds critical education, training, and career services to help people in need. Donations are the lifeblood of our organization. Fewer donations = less dollars for programs = less people served"
• Did he, through his actions, violate the organization’s Code of Ethical Conduct?
• Did he personally profit from this action, and should this have factored into Goodwill’s decision to terminate him?
• Was the punishment excessive, and would an option instead have been to give him a reprimand and unpaid time off from work?

Goodwill of Central Virginia’s leadership is comprised of several attorneys. Perhaps they were consulted, or helped establish policies, that govern situations as the one mentioned here.

————————————————————————————————————

ORIGINAL POST OF 8/19:

It doesn’t take much to question the reputation of an organization — even an unconfirmed story such as the one outlined below.

First a bit of background. Over the past decade I’ve donated many items to various non-profit organizations, and in the past year to Goodwill of Central Virginia. Most of the time when I stopped at the local donation site a man I’ll call "Joe" helped me. "Joe" had been employed by Goodwill for several years and was well-known in the shopping center where the donation site was located. But yesterday "Joe" wasn’t there, apparently the victim of a sting.

Here’s what I was told by an eyewitness someone who claimed to be an eyewitness:

A woman came to the donation site with a sob story of how she had just moved into a new place, had little money, and no furniture to put in it. She saw some old pieces at the site and wanted to know if maybe — please — she could take it, even though this wasn’t really allowed.

Now, "Joe" no doubt knew that he should ignore this plea, regardless of how desperate the woman appeared (and according to the eyewitnesI spoke with, person who claimed to be an eyewitness, she layed it on pretty thick). But after taking pity on the woman, and apparently given the old condition of the furniture, which the eyewitness told me would likely have been disposed of anyhow, "Joe" relented.    

A few moments later, the conversation having been secretly recorded, "Joe" was fired from his position by the very women, actually an employee of Goodwill, who entrapped him (strictly speaking, entrapment is a legal term that involves a law enforcement officer or his agent inducing or persuading someone to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; here the women was neither a part of law enforcement or an agent thereof).   

So here are the questions, assuming the incident as outlined above is true and accurate:

• Should "Joe" have allowed the woman to have the furniture? No, as it wasn’t his to give away.
• But would he have been inclined on his own to give someone these items, without being induced?
• And weren’t "Joe’s" actions in line — in spirit, at least — with Goodwill’s mandate of helping people in need?
• Did he, through his actions, violate the organization’s Code of Ethical Conduct?
• Did he personally profit from this action, and should this have factored into Goodwill’s decision to terminate him?
• Was the punishment excessive, and would an option instead have been to give him a reprimand and unpaid time off from work?

Goodwill of Central Virginia’s leadership is comprised of several attorneys. Perhaps they were consulted, or helped establish policies, that govern situations as the one mentioned here.

Update 8/21:

I spoke with the supervisor for the donation site, Henry White, and told him that I’ve been a regular donor to Goodwill and wondered why "Joe" was no longer employed there. Mr. White commented that "[Joe] went on to better things." When I mentioned to him the story I’ve been hearing, he said "that’s not what happened" and referred me to Human Resources.

I called HR Supervisor Michelle Danner and explained to her what I had heard and wondered whether she would comment on the situation, but she referred me on to Missy Murdock, Vice President, HR.

After telling Ms. Murdock that I’m a regular donor to the organization and that I’m concerned about what I’d heard, she stated that she couldn’t speak about this. I also mentioned that I work in PR and that, by not commenting, the impression that "Joe" had been somehow set-up was the only one left with the public. Ms. Murdock repeated that she could not comment and thanked me for the call.

——————————–

From a public relations perspective, is the negative word-of-mouth surrounding the circumstances of Joe’s termination — which, by the way, is apparently being was characterized as a voluntary quitting by the alleged witness –  worth Goodwill maintaining a "we will not comment under any circumstances" policy? 

While I appreciate Goodwill of Central Virginia’s general policy of not commenting on confidential employee matters, the refusal to make a statement explaining its side of this story, even in very broad terms — and instead leaving the impression that a former employee was terminated under questionable circumstances — probably isn’t an entirely productive approach.       

Additional note:

I’ve edited this post several times as I’ve received more information and tried to address the points made in the comments.

Update 8/22:

Aimée P. Walters, Goodwill of Central Virginia’s Director of Marketing & Communications, contacted me via e-mail today, and we had a phone conversation about Goodwill’s mission, policies and procedures, codes of conduct, employee training, and, of course, the incident discussed above, without divulging any confidences she is obligated to keep either by law or policy. She also mentioned that tomorrow she intends to leave a comment on this post, in order to explain, in the organization’s own words, what transpired. And, just to note, Ms. Walters consented to our conversation being "on record."

According to Ms. Walters, Goodwill has a very strict policy governing donated items and loss prevention that is communicated to its employees. Furthermore, it lets its employees know that donation sites are canvassed at random — which is what Ms. Walters said took place here:

– A licensed, female private investigator (who is a former undercover police officer), was canvassing several of the donation sites on the day in question. She approached "Joe" and had a 16-second conversation with him, which was recorded on a surveillance video w/o audio, as permissible by law.

– Based on the communication between the investigator and "Joe," which was transcribed by the investigator (the specifics of which were not shared with me), a policy violation took place that was grounds for termination.

– The incident did not involve furniture, but instead baby items.

– The surveillance video did not indicate that any other person besides "Joe" and the investigator were present.    

Not directly related to the facts of this situation, but nevertheless interesting, was that Ms. Walters said she first learned about this post from someone outside Virginia (I believe she said California and Arizona, and maybe she’ll confirm that in her upcoming comment) who filled out Goodwill’s online form, perhaps this one, and provided a link to the post itself. Only later did she find out, when speaking with Ms. Murdock, that I had contacted Goodwill directly — it had apparently been Ms. Murdock’s understanding that I was simply a concerned donor, which is why my inquiry was not passed on to Ms. Walters. Mentioning that I work in PR did not trigger me being put in touch with Ms. Walters, who deals with media-related matters.

Business Ethics Magazine lists its 100 Best Corporate Citizens for 2006 (Spring 2006, Vol. 20 #1) and explains that its methodology goes beyond simply measuring accountability to shareholders:

"Traditionally, firms have been judged on how well they serve stockholders. But in the 21st century — a new era of ecological limits, corporate ethics crises, and rising societal expectations — this traditional focus offers too narrow a definition of success. Firms rely upon healthy relations with many stock-holders. That means not only creating healthy returns for shareholders but emphasizing good jobs for employees, a clean environment, responsible relations with the community, and reliable products for consumers."

Companies that made the list for the past seven years are Brady Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., Cummins, Inc., Ecolab Inc., Graco Inc., Herman Miller, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Intel Corporation, Modine Manufacturing Co., Pitney Bowes, Inc., Procter & Gamble Company, St. Paul Travelers Companies, Southwest Airlines Company, Starbucks Corporation, Timberland Company and Whirlpool Corporation.

Writing about the 100 Best Corporations list, Mike Swenson asks us to consider, "could your company or client make this list today?  What would have to happen to make your company or client eligible to be one of the 100 Best Corporate Citizens?"

In the same vein, Ethical Corporation released a special report (PDF here) on Corporate Responsibility and Education. The foreward to the report states that:

"… whether corporate responsibility is a moral and ethical imperative or simply a new factor in doing business profitably, there emerging consensus is that it is here to stay and needs to be carefully managed. This requires new knowledge, skills and values that allow managers to balance profitability with stakeholder interests and social and environmental realities.

Academic institutions have a vital role, perhaps even obligation, to equip the next generation of business leaders with the cross-functional skills to cope with and flourish in an era of globalization in a way that creates economic growth and a sustainable future for people and the planet."

However, the report also notes that business school students can still graduate without having had to include corporate social responsibility into their studies. What is therefore being envisioned is a "triple-track approach" to incorporating CSR courses into the curriculum:

• CRS courses offered as electives,
• CRS courses required as part of the core curriculum, and
• CRS components included in other core courses.

The report also provides lists of European business schools offering CRS programs (p. 20) and top U.S. business schools for social and environmental stewardship (p. 24).

In Foreward Blog’s Foreward Podcast #3, meanwhile, Trevor Cook discussed the importance of ethics in public relations. Although his interview is geared towards PR students and young practitioners, these two statements apply equally well to all practitioners:

"We’d rather lose a client than an editor… and if we get a reputation of being too slippery with the truth or being too glib… then we’re going to go out of business very quickly…

We in the profession should be thinking about… the context and broader implications of what we do, because sometimes just telling the truth can be an easy way out…"

According to the WTVF report, "McDonald’s says it has a policy against hiring sex offenders at its 8,000 or so company owned stores. But at the 18,000 franchise stores that operate under the golden arches, they’re free to hire anyone they want."

WTVF’s investigation revealed nine sex offenders in Delaware, thirteen in Indiana and sixteen in Louisiana working in McDonald’s restaurants. But, unfortunately:

"We can’t tell you how many other child molesters or other sex offenders are working at McDonald’s restaurants here in Tennessee or anywhere else. That’s because in most states, including Tennessee, sex offender registries don’t have information about employers. So the public can’t find out — until something bad happens."

No response yet on McDonald’s Corporate site.

(Photo sources: Happy Ronald McDonald here and sad Ronald McDonald here.)

Unfortunately, getting in touch with the company hasn’t become any easier since I first wrote about the December 20 recall.

Despite its seemingly sincere efforts to help its customers (chief operating officer Mark Brinkman is quoted as saying "It’s going to take some time to take care of all these customers, and we’re going to do it”), concerned pet owners are still having difficulties getting any direct answers.

There’s Shanika Stewart, for example, whose 9-year old Chow Cocoa suffers from permanent liver damage after eating contaminated food:

Stewart says she has not spoken with anyone at the company despite several calls. The family has filled out an online form [link here] explaining their situation.

“You don’t get anybody to talk to and tell your story,” she said. “It’s like they’re not concerned. To me, it’s like they’re saying, ’Oh well, we’ll get to it when we get to it.”’

News of the recall quickly spread and is being covered by major media outlets (for example here and here), specialty news and information sites (here and here and here), Atlanta’s Craigslist, and on blogs and discussion forums (here and here and here).

How has Diamond Pet Foods responded to the aflatoxin discovery? On the plus side, the company sent out several news releases, the home page of its website exclusively covers information about the recall, and it created a toll-free Customer Information Center. Diamond obviously isn’t trying to hide the problem.

On the minus side, the company isn’t presenting a consistent "we care about the animals" image.

(1) Take this news release from PR Newswire:

"Our highest priority right now is the health and well-being of our
customers’ pets," General Manager Mark Brinkmann of Diamond Pet Foods said.
"We are committed to keeping our customers informed and are taking aggressive
steps to resolve this issue. We’re proud of our long history of producing high
quality and safe products and deeply regret that this situation has occurred."

How about changing this to something like: "Our only concern right now is to protect the health and well-being of our customers’ pets. We promise to immediately inform our customers about all important developments and are taking aggressive steps to resolve this problem. We deeply regret that this situation occurred."

(2) In its December 27 update, the company says:

"We are experiencing an exceptionally high rate of emails and telephone calls in response to the recall. To help answer many of your questions, please review the information contained on this Web site. We appreciate your understanding and pledge to provide updated information on a timely basis."

Why didn’t Diamond write something like this? "Many concerned pet owners are calling and e-mailing us. We want to answer all your questions as quickly as possible and apologize if you have to wait to talk to, or hear back from, us. The answers to some of your questions may be available on our website, so please have a look around."

(3) The "How Can I Get Help" link on the company home page leads to a Customer Help Form that says,

"To most efficiently assist all of our affected customers in a timely manner, we ask that you fill out our customer help form. Once submitted, your information will be processed by one of our representatives who will contact you."

The form asks such questions as when and where the pet was purchased, the date of the pet’s last vaccination, the date and location where the pet food was purchased, and the lot number and the Best Buy date of the pet food.

The problem with this form is two-fold. First of all, many pet owners aren’t going to have this  information readily available. Secondly, given the risk of death posed by aflatoxin, asking frightened customers to help the company be "efficient" and wait until "your information will be processed by one of our representatives who will contact you" isn’t realistic.

(4) Not until December 28 was there any word on helping pet owners with veterinary bills incurred as a result of having their pets tested or treated. Interestingly, the company’s web site doesn’t reference this article. Perhaps that’s because the company’s Chief Operating Officer is quoted as saying: 

"We want to work out a consistent and fair program to provide customers disaffected by this tragedy with help with their veterinary bills."

A "consistent and fair program" for whom? The concerned or grieving pet owners, or the company?

I wonder how Diamond Pet Foods will continue to handle this situation. Will the company pay all legitimate veterinary bills in full? Will it directly reach out to affected pet owners with a personal gesture such as a charity donation in the sick or deceased animal’s name?

Update: As of yesterday evening, the death toll stood at 23 dogs, with another 18 sick. The FDA issued a consumer alert stating that some of the recalled products had been exported to at least 29 countries.