Oympic sponsors have been warned that they face a “perfect storm” of public
relations problems at this summer's Beijing Games.
Steven Spielberg's decision to withdraw as an artistic adviser to the opening
and closing ceremonies over Chinese support for Sudan has emboldened
activists seeking to heap pressure on Beijing over Darfur and other issues,
ranging from Tibet and Burma to human rights abuses and labour malpractice.
“There is a potential for a constellation of issues gathering into a perfect
storm,” Eliot Cutler, a Beijing-based lawyer advising sponsors of the Games,
said. “But there is plenty of time and opportunity for China, the organising
committee and the sponsors to deal with those issues to mitigate that
happening.”
Mr Cutler's American law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, has formed
an alliance with a consulting unit of the French advertising giant Publicis
Groupe to advise companies on crisis management.
Their first job before the Games could be to manage a series of protests
outside the corporate headquarters of sponsors who do not speak out about
Chinese backing for Sudan.
Spielberg's decision came at the end of a worldwide “Day of Action” for Darfur
in which Nobel peace laureates, former Olympic athletes, celebrities and
Holocaust survivors joined the actress Mia Farrow in protesting against
Beijing's backing for Sudan, an important oil supplier to the energy-hungry
economy of China.
Dream for Darfur, a US-based lobby group connected to the
actress-turned-activist, plans to highlight the “moral obligation” of 19
companies associated with the Games to raise the issues with the Chinese
Government and the United Nations.
If the 12 leading sponsors — including Coca-Cola, General Electric, Eastman
Kodak and McDonald's — do not meet the activists' five “modest” demands by
next month, they will feel the full force of their campaign. This includes a
blitz of protests along the high-profile Olympic torch relay from Athens to
Beijing and a worldwide call to “turn off” the sponsors' adverts during the
Games and tune in to a live internet broadcast of Ms Farrow from a refugee
camp in Darfur.
“We don't believe in consumer boycotts but it will soon become clear that it
feels better to drink Pepsi than to drink Coke,” Jill Savitt, executive
director of Dream for Darfur, said.
The group - which takes its name from China's Olympic slogan, “One World, One
Dream” — prepared a “report card” in November ranking the sponsors for their
position on Darfur. GE achieved the best grade of C-plus, largely for making
contact with the International Olympic Committee about the problems in
Sudan. McDonald's and adidas were awarded a C grade while Coca-Cola, Johnson &
Johnson and UPS received a D.
The other 13 companies were marked with an F because of inaction. They were:
Atos Origin, Lenovo, Manulife, Panasonic, Samsung, Swatch, Anheuser-Busch,
BHP Billiton, Eastman Kodak, Microsoft, Staples, Visa and Volkswagen.
Dream for Darfur is now preparing a second report card. The five tests are:
whether the companies are willing to meet Ms Farrow; will call publicly for
Sudanese officials indicted for war crimes to be banned from attending the
Games; will contact the Chinese Government about Darfur; will work with
other sponsors on the issue; and will contact the UN about Darfur. It is not
calling on sponsors, who have already paid on average $100 million (£50
million) in sponsorship fees, or athletes, who have invested years of
training, to boycott the Games.
The target of the campaign is the Chinese Government, and it wants the
sponsors to use their collective power to effect a change in policy.
“No individual company wants to cross China. They don't want to be banned from
the 1.3 billion soda drinkers or light bulb users. But we're saying let's
roll up our sleeves and figure out together a way to end what's going on in
Darfur,” Ms Savitt said. “These corporations have some of the best PR talent
on the planet.”
Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million driven from
their homes since 2003, is only the tip of the iceberg, according to
activists who say that sponsors now face increasing pressure on a number of
fronts from Tibet to Taiwan.
Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director for the New York-based Human Rights
Watch, said that Spielberg's decision had “upped the ante”. She said: “This
is a person they engaged for a very specific, high-profile propaganda event,
and for him to have injected politics into that relationship means the
Chinese Government cannot keep ducking the connection between hosting the
Olympics and the greater scrutiny of its actions at home and abroad.”
The film-maker's withdrawal was perhaps inevitable given Hollywood's
small-town mentality and Ms Farrow's persistence, but the way it was picked
up around the world caught sponsors by surprise.
Mr Cutler said: “I have not heard anything from anyone since Spielberg. A lot
of people are digesting this, thinking about how they are going to manage
this. I think some of them have done. Some have not.
“In some of these sponsors you are going to find people saying, 'Jeez, maybe
we need to convene a meeting to think about this'. The real challenge for
the Chinese is to keep it from snowballing.”
The Chinese were slow to react to Spielberg's move on Tuesday. For the entire
day that followed his announcement, there was silence from the Beijing
organising committee and the Communist Party.
When a press release materialised on Thursday, it expressed “regret” at the
director's decision but stressed the need to separate sport from politics.
This stance only exercised human rights activists, who pointed out that China
had consistently used the Olympics as a “blunt tool” since 1956, when it
withdrew from the Melbourne Games in protest at the inclusion of the
Taiwanese delegation. The Beijing Olympic Organising Committee (BOCOG),
staffed by highly educated, multilingual Chinese from the urban elite, could
argue in its defence that its sole remit is to deliver the Games, not to
comment on domestic politics.
Just as the IOC makes it a virtual mission statement to separate sport from
politics, the committee is divorced from the party machine — as much as
anything can be in a totalitarian state.
Faced with the prospect of handling more than 20,000 accredited journalists
and a further 20,000 roaming reporters for the month of August, BOCOG
acknowleged that it needed outside help. It enlisted the services of Hill &
Knowlton, one of the world's largest PR firms, which has been facilitating
pre-Games visits by international journalists and will help it to manage the
large media contingent during the 16-day event.
It is possible that Quincy Jones, the Grammy-winning American music
impresario, who is composing the Olympic theme tune, could follow
Spielberg's lead to deepen the PR nightmare for Beijing. His publicist said
last night that he had not made a decision about whether to pull out.
Some believe that even with this development the Spielberg effect will be
shortlived. “This is not the touchpaper for something bigger. It's a story
for a week, then so what?” one source said. “In my opinion, the activists
moved too soon. As it gets nearer to the Olympics, it's all about the sport
anyway.”
China’s domestic and international pitfalls
Environment: China is listed as home to 16 of the 20 most polluted
cities on earth
Xinjiang: mainly Muslim restive region many of whose Uighur ethic
minority want independence
Human rights: China has jailed an unknown number dissidents and is the
world’s leading jailer of journalists
Executions: China imposes the death penalty on more people each year
than the rest of the world combined, 1,051 in 2006
Tibet: International activists and exiled Tibetans demand independence
Darfur: China buys around two-thirds of Sudan’s oil but resists calls
to influence Khartoum to end the killings
Burma: Chinese has gas and timber interests in the country but refuses
to pressure the ruling junta to accept change
Iran: China has expanded commercial ties and refuses to impose
sanctions. Iran was China’s third-largest oil supplier and signed a $2bn
development deal with Tehran last year
Zimbabwe: One few nations friendly to Zimbabwe until last year when it
claimed to have stopped all collaboration except humanitarian assistance
Sponsors of Beijing 2008
Coca Cola Market cap: $134.13bn
Non alcoholic-beverage sponsor
Coca-Cola has cooperated with Darfur campaign groups and has donated $750,000
in aid to Darfur. It has also received awards for corporate social
responsibility and environmentalism from the Chinese press and American
Chamber in Shanghai. It has not raised the issue of Darfur directly with
either the Chinese government or the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Atos Origin Market Cap: £3.54bn
Joined the TOP sponsors in 2001
Official Information Technology sponsor for the Olympics. Atos have ignored
attempted engagement by campaign groups and have taken no direct action to
help the situation in Darfur directly or by engagement with the Chinese
government
General Electrics (GE) Market cap: $342.94bn
The largest sponsor of the games
GE provides a range of services from its 11 diverse businesses. GE has a
Statement of Principles on Human Rights which claims it ‘promotes the
advancement of fundamental human rights’. It has cooperated with Darfur
campaign groups as well as making a $2m contribution to humanitarian funds.
GE has ceased doing business in Sudan and has also directly contacted the
IOC, saying it believes in ‘quiet diplomacy’
Johnson and Johnson Market cap: $181.38bn
Healthcare product sponsor
Johnson and Johnson has been highly placed in several listings of
socially-responsible companies and is featured in many ethical investment
portfolios It has contributed $750,000 directly to relief in Darfur. It has
not joined any public campaigns against the Chinese government’s interaction
with Sudan arguing that they can effect change most successfully through
developing “relationships of mutual trust and respect with governments
around the world”
Kodak Market Cap: $5.54bn
Film, photographic and imaging sponsor
Kodak stopped doing business with Sudan in 2007 and will withdraw as an
Olympic sponsor after Beijing. It is noted as a responsible company and
included in some ethical investment funds. It has engaged with Darfur
campaign groups but not directly with either the IOC or the Chinese
government.
Lenovo Market cap: $48.26bn
Computing equipment sponsor
Lenovo, China’s largest domestic seller of personal computers, has ignored
attempts to contact it by Darfur campaign groups, has made no declared
humanitarian contributions and has not lobbied the IOC or Chinese
governments
Manulife Market cap: $55.82bn
Life Insurance/Annuities sponsor
Canadian-based insurers new to Olympic sponsorship. Have not lobbied IOC or
Chinese government nor made contribution to Darfur relief
McDonalds Market cap: $66.09bn
Retail food service sponsor
Declined to speak publically about China and Darfur but has raised concerns
with IOC
Omega (Swatch Group) Market cap: $8.41bn
Timing and timing equipment sponsorship
Have ignored communications from campaign groups and refused to express
concern over Darfur to IOC or Chinese government
Panasonic (Matsushita) Market cap: $44.39bn
Audio/TV/Video Equipment sponsor
Panasonic has not cooperated with campaign groups or voiced concern to the IOC
or Chinese government. Has been praised for funding relief work in Java the
Philippines
Samsung Market cap: $3.24bn
Wireless Communications sponsor
Neither Samsung nor its PR has acknowledged the concerns of Darfur campaign
groups. It has not contacted the IOC or the Chinese government
Visa Market cap: (not publically listed)
Consumer Payment Systems sponsor
Visa is included in socially responsible funds but has responded slowly to
communication about the Olympics-Darfur issue and has not raised concerns
with the IOC or Chinese government
