Annamalai University MBA Chennai DDE

Marketing Management 1)

Facility information, progress reports & USDA-APHIS reports

For links to copies of this facility's U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection (APHIS) reports, other information and links, see also Facility Reports and Information: Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio. [3]

For links to copies of this facility's USDA-Animal Plant Health Inspection (APHIS) reports, other information and links, see also Facility Reports and Information: The IAMS Company, Dayton, OH.[4]

USDA AWA reports

As of May 26, 2009, the USDA began posting all inspection reports for animal breeders, dealers, exhibitors, handlers, research facilities and animal carriers by state. See also USDA Animal Welfare Inspection Reports.

This information does not include animal testing contracted out to contract research organizations (CRO)s nor testing done outside of the U.S. Firms hire CROs to conduct animal toxicity tests for agrochemicals, petrochemicals, household products, pharmaceutical drugs and toxins. See also pharmaceutical industry, section 9 on contract research organizations.

Huntingdon Life Sciences

P&G is a former client of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS).[5]

Animal cruelty & welfare violations

Iams investigation (United States)

PETA investigation of Sinclair Research Center. - 2002 - 2003

For nearly 10 months in 2002 and 2003, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) conducted an undercover investigation at Sinclair Research Center, a contract laboratory for Iams pet food. The investigation found dogs had gone crazy from intense confinement in barren steel cages and cement cells. Dogs were left piled on a filthy paint-chipped floor after chunks of muscle had been hacked from their thighs. They had also been surgically debarked. Severely ill dogs and cats were languished in cages without veterinary care. Iams representatives toured the facility and witnessed dogs circling their cells and sweltering in the summer heat, yet did nothing about it. The USDA investigated PETA's complaint and cited the laboratory for failure to provide veterinary care and pain relief; adequate space; and employee training; along with almost 40 other violations of the Animal Welfare Act. [6], [7] Sinclair paid a penalty of $33,000.

After intense pressure from PETA and its supporters, Iams agreed to sever its ties with Sinclair Research Center and end invasive and terminal experiments on dogs and cats. Iams also agreed to begin conducting in-home tests for food and nutrition experiments. However, they still keep up to 700 dogs in their Dayton, Ohio laboratory for non-invasive nutritional studies, which they have refused to give a PETA representative access to. Iams has also refused to end invasive experiments on non dog and cat studies. Iams funded an almost $200,000 two-year study at Purdue University that consisted of taping the tails of mice to the tops of cages to keep their hind legs suspended and cause muscular atrophy. They also fought the release of information from another university study in which a painful disease was induced in dogs. Animal groups have pressured Iams to conduct 100% non-invasive, cage free in-home tests only. [8]

Iams investigation (United Kingdom)

Shocking cruelty was also exposed in the United Kingdom in 2001. IAMS/Eukanuba's experiments on hundreds of animals caused kidney failure, obesity, malnutrition, liver damage, severe allergic reactions, stomach inflammation, diarrhoea, severe skin disorders, lesions, skin wounds and other painful illnesses.[9] In May of 2001, the Sunday Express revealed "damning evidence of gruesome tests performed on dogs and cats".[10]

The UK laboratory watchdog group, Uncaged Campaigns, uncovered documents describing Iams' "horrific research" on 460 cats and dogs. The front page story was based on the groups' investigation. Many of the animals endured painful, invasive and lethal tests. After the story broke, the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) vowed to sever its ties with the company. In a January of 2002 letter responding to Uncaged Campaigns' concerns, the RSPCA acknowledge that "allegations" which appeared in the Express "were indeed well-founded", in spite of the company's denials. The RSPCA described P&G's policy statement that "we do not use cats and dogs in research or testing for non-drug products" as "deficient". Several other welfare groups and rescue societies vowed "not to give IAMS a platform in future." Many other animal welfare, animal rights and companion animal groups pledged their support.[11] See also links to Iams pages.[12]

P&G product testing

P&G uses many other species of animals, including guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, ferrets, rats and mice for "product safety research", in addition to using cats and dogs in pet food experiments. Investigations by Uncaged Campaigns revealed disturbing examples of P&G’s ongoing painful and lethal animal testing:

"P&G test on animals because of their desire to get new chemical ingredients on to the market. This allows them to claim that their new hair dye, skin cream or washing powder etc. is ‘new, improved’, in the hope of increasing sales. But with many companies producing similar consumer products without carrying out animal tests, it shows that P&G’s cruelty is motivated by greed." ..instead of reforming, P&G invest enormous amounts in PR and spin that aims to give a rosy impression of their testing practices. P&G have even been lobbying governments to try to block bans on animal testing for cosmetics that have public support."[13]

Their investigations uncovered the company's plans for massive animal testing programs for new cosmetics and household product ingredients. See also descriptions of experiments.[14] According to In Defense of Animals (IDA), P&G claims to no longer use dogs in product testing and to have reduced animal testing by 90%. However, they refuse to release numbers, species and specific information about tests, even to their own shareholders. P&G still kills thousands of animals a year in cruel, painful tests for trivial, unnecessary ingredients. See also Recent Procter & Gamble animal testing [15] & animal testing, section 3 on product (toxicity) testing.

Over 90% of the animals used in experimentation are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the only federal law which over sees animal testing. Rats, mice, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish are expressly eliminated from all safeguards. Species not covered under the AWA do not even have to be reported. [16] See also USDA.

Global Boycott Proctor & Gamble Day

Global Boycott Proctor & Gamble Day is sponsored by Uncaged Campaigns. It is usually held on the third Saturday of May as part of a worldwide campaign to publicize P&G's animal testing policies and educate consumers about cruelty-free shopping.

Corporate Social Responsibility



At IndianOil, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been the cornerstone of success right from inception in the year 1964. The Corporation’s objectives in this key performance area are enshrined in its Mission statement: "…to help enrich the quality of life of the community and preserve ecological balance and heritage through a strong environment conscience."



We at IndianOil have defined a set of core values for ourselves – Care, Innovation, Passion and Trust – to guide us in all we do. We take pride in being able to claim almost all our countrymen as our customers. That’s why, we coined the phrase, “IndianOil – India Inspired", in our corporate campaigns. Public corporations like IndianOil are essentially organs of society deploying significant public resources. We, therefore, are aware of the need to work beyond financial considerations and put in that little extra to ensure that we are perceived not just as corporate behemoths that exist for profits, but as wholesome entities created for the good of the society and for improving the quality of life of the communities we serve.



As a constructive partner in the communities in which it operates, IndianOil has been taking concrete action to realise its social responsibility objectives, thereby building value for its shareholders and customers. The Corporation respects human rights, values its employees, and invests in innovative technologies and solutions for sustainable energy flow and economic growth. In the past five decades, IndianOil has supported innumerable social and community initiatives in India. Touching the lives of millions of people positively by supporting environmental and health-care projects and social, cultural and educational programmes.



Besides focusing primarily on the welfare of economically and socially deprived sections of society, IndianOil also aims at developing techno-economically viable and environment-friendly products & services for the benefit of millions of its consumers, while at the same time ensuring the highest standards of safety and environment.

Social responsibility

We live in a world where more than 50 of the biggest economies are corporations, where General Motors' turnover is bigger than Denmark's GDP, and where footloose capital and the rising power of corporations are seen to be eclipsing the sovereignty of nation states. So it's no surprise that people now demand big business be more accountable.

As ethicist Attracta Lagan writes in her book 3-D Ethics (eContent Management, 2005): "Business will determine the quality of the air we breathe, the fuel we burn, the food we eat and the water we drink. So too, it is business that will shape the emergence of a global society by determining who is included, who is informed, who gets what and which human rights are enshrined in the global workplace. Business now has to have the potential to enhance or destabilise social progress in equal measure."

The growing power of capital is another force pushing the change. During the past decade, we have witnessed the rise of the so-called universal owners - global financial institutions that have holdings across the entire economy.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Their holdings encompass most sectors, markets and asset classes, making their interests largely the same as the public's. Significantly, these institutions have been pushing companies to disclose more about their greenhouse gas emissions.

The force of these institutions, and the investment money they represent, simply cannot be overestimated.

All over the world, money is sloshing about as more people put it away for their retirement. In Australia alone, the superannuation pool has reached $1 trillion, making this country one of the top five pension savings pools in the world.

An increasing number of institutions controlling these investments are starting to judge companies on their performance on environmental, social and governance issues. Put simply, companies will discover that they ignore issues such as environmental damage and social dislocation at their peril.

Another reason why more companies are taking corporate social responsibility seriously is the threat of reputational damage.

Consider, for example, the way oil company Exxon's reputation was trashed after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Locally, James Hardie still has to fix the damage to its reputation over its battle with asbestos victims, even though the company is still going well as a business concern.

The other force driving the change is the pressure for increasing accountability in a world where information is just a click away.

The compartmentalisation of business - where companies are responsible only for what they produce - is no longer acceptable. Young people are now growing up in a networked world. The world of electronic messaging, email, and internet and intranet relationships makes it harder for companies to get away with having a large gap between what they claim they are about and their actions.

While more companies are taking corporate social responsibility seriously, they seem no closer to understanding what it means.

For some, it's about compliance and philanthropy; for others it's sustainability, and some talk about the company's impact on society and its relationships with the community. Others just focus on the environment.

What's badly needed is a broader framework, one that has 10 basic rules.

The first five set out what corporate social responsibility is, and the next five define how the organisation should deal with it so it is more than lip-service and public relations window-dressing:

1. Corporate governance and accountability: the company is accountable to shareholders, government, employees, customers and community. The hard part: setting targets that would make it accountable to all these stakeholders.

2. Sustainability and environment: this takes in a huge area including greenhouse gas emissions, water, paper, degradation, impact of supply chains, green investment, salinity, agricultural practices and cultural heritage.

3. Workforce: this covers areas such as fair pay and conditions, women and minorities in management roles, maternity leave and re-entry, people with disabilities, mature-aged workers, disadvantaged youth, long-term unemployed and indigenous communities. It also includes occupational health and safety, training and work-life balance.

4. Human rights: takes in supply-chain issues, fair trading, alliances and partnerships with certain governments and the impact of products.

5. Community involvement: this covers all sorts of areas including meaningful volunteering programs, staff lending their skills to the boards of non-profit organisations and philanthropy.

For the organisation, there are five key issues that need to be addressed. If they fail to do all of these, corporate social responsibility becomes a meaningless exercise.

1. Companies need to demonstrate corporate social responsibility as a value proposition to the board.

2. They need to find ways of getting support from shareholders and consumers.

3. It is critical for the organisation to develop audit tools so that they can place a dollar value and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of all their corporate social responsibility expenditure.

4. They need to approach it in a business-like way. Good corporate social responsibility should be good business.

5. The programs need to be run at a senior level. There is no point fobbing it off on to the corporate affairs or marketing departments because that creates silos and prevents any impact on the corporate culture.

Still, there are limits to what corporate social responsibility can do. The biggest mistake businesses can make is to assume they are responsible for fixing the world's environmental and social problems.

Much of it comes down to government policies.

However, businesses are in a position to provide leadership and guidance.

The benefits will flow when businesses, government and communities work together