John Lewis Sale! Huge Reductions in Ethics!

The StopFundingHate campaign is a new(ish) approach to an old problem. Both personally and professionally, I have long believed that success should not be to the detriment of the greater good.

As a family, we try to make conscious purchase decisions based on the ethics of brands. This can be a challenge because most of the large high street brands have a somewhat spotty record. The primary exceptions are the John Lewis Partnership and the Co-op, both of which have/have had their issues, but overall have a fair ethical compass.

Yet:

@StopFundingHate We fully appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue but never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper

— John Lewis (@JLcustserv) November 10, 2016

From this tweet (and apparently a full online ad campaign with the Daily Mail), John Lewis appear to be comfortable to set aside their ethics when it suits them.

If a supplier of (say) lamp shades to John Lewis encouraged hatred towards a minority or persistently lied to John Lewis customers (the local community), would stores continue to sell products sourced from a supplier that clearly contravened the ethical policy?

I think we know the answer to that one. Yet they still stock the Daily Mail, Express and Sun.

Newspapers also provide an advertising service to John Lewis. They are a 'supplier of goods [or services] not for resale'.

The John Lewis ethical policies page is very clear. The text next to link for Sourcing Responsibly it reads:

Rule 96: 'The Partnership’s relationships with its suppliers must be based on honesty, fairness, courtesy...'

And if you look into the constitution[pdf], Rule 96 continues:

'...and promptness. It looks for a similar attitude throughout its supply chains. In particular, the Partnership expects its suppliers to obey the law and to respect the wellbeing of their employees, their local communities and the environment'

In the Responsible Sourcing Code of Practice Goods Not For Resale[pdf]) we have the following statement:

We seek to work with companies who share similar ethical standards and values to ours and who will commit themselves to meeting the requirements of this Code. We are committed to working with suppliers to support necessary improvements that will enable a supplier to meet the requirements of the code but we may also take action if they subsequently do not.

So, John Lewis has a constitution that states it seeks to work with companies that share its ethical values and may also take action if those ethical values are not shared.

Does the the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun share the same ethical values as John Lewis?

Or does John Lewis share the same ethical values as the hate mongering side of the UK press?

.@JLcustserv We're not asking you to make an editorial judgement. We're asking you to make an ethical judgement. #GoodwillToAll

— Stop Funding Hate (@StopFundingHate) November 11, 2016

This is key. No one expects advertisers to make editorial judgements, even though they do this already (would you see a John Lewis advert in a top shelf magazine?).

We do (or should) expect them to make ethical judgements.

John Lewis has chosen not to act against its published constitution and ethical code of practice.

The John Lewis Partnership can either be an ethical company or can be a company that chooses to fund the promotion of hatred.

It can't be both.