AUTOMAKER AND THE BEEF PRODUCTION CHAIN
The world is undergoing what is probably the most intense phase of an orchestrated inversion of values adversely affecting people’s daily life and invading corporate decisions. There is currently an infamous effort to turn natural, recyclable materials into a problem and pollutants into desirable products.
Globally valuable businesses are being involved in false narratives and, many times, they find themselves going against their own DNA, their history and their commitment to credibility by making naïve decisions or, even opportunistic ones that they may greatly regret in a not so distant future. Such is the recent case of an automaker. A conceptually fragile marketing piece built on false information that has unnecessarily put its brand at great risk.
By publicising that it will be replacing leather with synthetic materials in the interior of all its electric cars, the automaker used its prerogative to choose which components will be put into its products. However, it is obvious that the company did not assess the damage that may be made by the propagation of the misinformation that led it to error.
Leather has never been the villain for being natural, comfortable and recyclable, exactly the opposite of the non-sustainable, non-degradable and essentially polluting synthetic materials chosen by the company.
It is well-known that the frustrated attempt to turn leather into a contaminating material and the reason for slaughter have originated from the desperate need that certain animal protection NGOs have to promote their actions. Such NGOs shall use any argument, whether true of false, to achieve their goals.
Obviously, the automaker understands about market relations and is aware that leather is a sub-product of the beef industry and that animals are slaughtered due to the demand for food. The company also knows that there is no connection whatsoever between the use of leather and animal welfare.
Replacing leather with a material made from recycled PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles, one of the most polluting products in the world, means reducing the added value of the company’s products as well as exchanging a solution for a future environmental problem. When such material is disposed of and is part of the huge volume of polluting rubbish, it will not show its brand. The model reveals a hazy, environmentally obscure attitude at the time of disposal. The satisfaction of the unaware buyers shall translate into a high environmental cost to the planet.
Making decisions based of fads, especially non-transparent ones, places the credibility of the brand at a very high risk.
Unfortunately, the automaker, that has always been an example of innovation, technology, safety and comfort, has fallen victim to a well-orchestrated persuasion campaign based on practices that are limited by politically correctness, and been induced to an error as big as the company itself which will certainly bring about consequences deriving from the liability caused by its decision.
There is no need for a crystal ball or premonition to foresee that disputes of such magnitude shall not be restricted to leather as a raw material but will certainly spread, in different ways, to other sectors of the beef production chain.
Luiz Bittencourt – Metallurgical Engineer/UFF/RJ/Brazil; Master of Engineering./McGill University/Montreal/Canada; Postgraduated in International Trade /UniversidadeMackenzie/SP/Brazil – [email protected]
Hélio Mendes – Government and Business Consultant – www.institutolatino.com.br
[wpforms id=”10384″]
