Talk:Unilever/Archives/2015

Controversy section
'Unilever claims that corporate social responsibility is at the heart of its business.[41] '

No: WP:CLAIM

'However, the transition to a responsible and sustainable company is ongoing and Unilever has attracted a variety of criticisms from political, environmental and human rights activists on not achieving the high aims it communicates on a number of topics.[42]'

Transition? So it wasn't before? Source please.

And then the criticisms are cited to 'Unilever Corporate Crimes' at 'Corporate Watch.' ORLY? WP:RS

I don't think so.

'Unilever states it is committed to the elimination of animal testing, and that in those countries where it is a legal requirement it tries to convince the relevant authorities to change the law.[43]'

This is not controversial.

' Some activists[who?] argue that this is little more than an effort to gain good publicity and Unilever continue to use animal experimentation such as the LD50.#

Unsourced, potentially libellous.

'In 2003, Hindustan Unilever was accused of making use of child labour.[44]

Hindustan Unilever, had been showing television advertisements for skin-lightening cream, Fair and Lovely, depicting depressed, dark-skinned women, who had been ignored by employers and men, suddenly finding new boyfriends and glamorous careers after the cream had lightened their skin.[45]'

Ok, is this relevant to the wider Unilever, considering that Hindustan Unilever already covers this?

'The Austrian branch of Unilever (Eskimo) is producing and marketing an ice-cream under the name Mohr im Hemd. "Mohr" (moor), is a colonial German word for African or black people, has a heavily colonialist and racist connotation.,[46][47] "Mohr im Hemd" (moor in the shirt) is a traditional Austrian chocolate speciality which refers to naked, "wild" Africans. Unilever refutes any racist intentions and claims that it has tested the name in broad market studies in Austria without any critical feedback.'

It's a traditional dessert, like spotted dick, why does this need mentioning here, on the page for a multi-billion-euro company?

'Unilever received criticism from The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood for a 2007 Axe marketing campaign, which they considered sexist.[48] Unilever's response was that the campaign was intended as a spoof and "not meant to be taken literally".[49]'

Ok, so some group of anti-capitalists got pissed off. Is this really a sufficiently key criticism of the Unilever corporation to go here? Try Lynx (grooming product) perhaps?

Removing section. 81.141.25.11 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What about skin lightening creams? Unilever's Fair and Lovely cream is a major product in South Asian countries. It's also super controversial on the fact that it's blatantly colorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houdinipeter (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Kodaikanal mercury poisoning
I added Kodaikanal info in controversy section after the release of Sofia Ashraf's song, with information on the song and the allegations. Since then, it's been revised with the bulk of information coming directly from Unilever's website, citing the website itself, asserting that the spill is not Unilever's fault and they are waiting on the government to clean-up. This violates WP:NPOV, and while I think it's good to mention Unilever's response, hardly gives an accurate or balanced picture of the incident. (Not to mention the page itself is very biased, with unsourced claims like, "There were no adverse impacts on the health of employees or the environment. This has been confirmed by many independent studies." I would much appreciate help in clarifying and expanding sources and info on Unilever's environmental impact. Preferably not with Unilever as the main source. Fuzchia (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)