IKEAs flatpack approach to diversity

After our recent discussion of IKEA's role as a public institution  it was interesting to see this week that the company has been in hot water over the last few days after revelations that it removed images of women in its Saudi Arabia catalogue. The evidence, on the face of it, is pretty damning. As you can see in the pictures here, it really is a case of disappearing women. No doubt about it.

There is a feel of something ethically troubling here, with critics arguing that   IKEA should be upholding its values of equality. The Swedish trade ministerhas kicked in by criticising the company while IKEA itself has offered an apology, saying that the practice is "in conflict with company values".

The question we have to ask though is whether IKEA really is doing anything much wrong here? After all, isn't it up to them what pictures they want to put in their own catalogues? And don't they have a responsibility to meet local cultural norms as long as no ones fundamental rights are being infringed? Its not like any women were directly disadvantaged by their actions, we're they?

As far as we can see, though, IKEA hasn't been very smart or subtle in appearing to airbrush its women from Saudi. As far as cultural sensitivity goes, its a pretty basic effort to fit in with cultural norms in the country. But first, let's remember that IKEAs catalogues are increasingly just computer generated anyway, so maybe the women were never actually "there" in the first place. And second, let's not pretend that IKEA catalogues are a glowing example of diversity to begin with. Show us the rich ethnic mix in the catalogue. Or for that matter, the representations of women in hijab that constitute a large part of the female population in many parts of the world where the firm operates.

A global company it may be, but a globally diverse catalogue it is not. IKEA markets a homogenous global product for a global audience with less tailoring to local tastes even than other global giants such as McDonald's or Wall-Mart attempt.  So what are we complaining about here? That IKEA hasn't been 100% homogenous after all and we don't like it? Is homogeneity really the best solution to equality and diversity problems?

That's not to say it doesn't matter what pictures companies use in their marketing campaigns, because in our view, it certainly does. This is especially so for big companies like IKEA because they have such a major impact on the visual world around us. But demanding that they present a unified image across the globe just seems to be missing the point.  Shouldn't we be demanding that they present a genuinely diverse representation of their customers, maybe even one tailored to the societies in which they operate? Disappearing white women from your catalogues in Saudi Arabia certainly doesn't look good, but it's hardly the biggest problem here.

Regular readers of our academic research will know that we have a long standing interest in the role of companies in shaping people's citizenship opportunitiesand experience. IKEA here is clearly failing to promote the cause of women's equality in Saudi, insofar as equality is measured in terms of representation. This is one part of the picture (in the same way that failing to represent ethnic minorities or those with different sexual orientations in advertising presents and reinforces a skewed image of society). But it's not the only important one.

A critical role is also played by the company in its hiring and promotion policies, and in its other efforts to promote (or not) equality in Saudi. If the company isn't doing a good job on these fronts (and this is a question that demands further investigation) then presenting a pretty diversity picture in its catalogues would be little more than window dressing anyway. Let's hope the latest scandal presages some deeper consideration of how to deal with diversity at the company given its increasing global spread. Saudi women, if not the curiously disappearing catalogue models, deserve no less. 

Photo: IKEA
Thanks to Jeremy Sandler for alerting us to the story

Lunch at IKEA

Copyright Kai Hendry

Shopping on an empty stomach is not fun. Especially if its shopping for something a little more sophisticated, such as furniture. No wonder than IKEA, the Swedish budget furniture chain, runs restaurants in all its locations. I had a chance to check one out last Saturday. Well, that is, in the end I didn’t.

Copyright Kai Hendry

I have never eaten at IKEA but as my 11-month old baby daughter needed her food anyway, and we were just about to enter the store, we thought we might as well check it out. Nothing had prepared us though for what was going on there. There were two massive lines the size of a check in line for a intercontinental flight and I would estimate that there were at least 500 people in the restaurant. Families with kids, grandmother and dog were queuing up next to young couples or groups of teenagers, old single men as well as people in wheelchairs. It was an amazing mix.

Copyright rayb777

Given the size of the lines and the prospective waiting time we quickly folded the idea of lunch and just fed the baby with what we had with us. The IKEA lunch line though was an exciting spectacle to watch for a few minutes. The food looked actually quite good, though it was rather simple. Meat-and-two-veg seemed to be the general structure. And generous portions. It was cheap: none of the items is more than $7.99 with the legendary Meatball staple at $5.99. It also looked relatively healthy. Only two of the seven main dishes on offer contained fries or deep fried stuff; most had vegetables or salad as sides; and the pasta and crepes were even organic! No junk food this.

It is kind of funny when sitting in the restaurant of a multinational chain you suddenly get the feeling of being more in a public institution – the place looked like the hospital or school canteens of my youth or the university ‘mensa’ of my student days. The entire place had more something of an institutional air around it rather than a ‘restaurant’. Underlined by the demographics of the dining public this appeared more like a social institution than a privately run for-profit restaurant. It even reminded me a little bit of a public soup kitchen or red cross food outlets which I saw when visiting refugee camps in the aftermath of the Yugoslavian wars in the mid 1990s.

Now the peculiar thing here is that all this was not only provided by an otherwise known as a ruthless, efficient and profit driven multinational corporation. Even more, it was just because IKEA has this ultimate modern perfection of a Fordist business model with globally standardized sourcing, products, and processes that the company is able to offer this affordable food supply. I was reminded of investigations in the mid 2000s in Germany which found that IKEA had become the food supplier of choice for people on welfare and low incomes. At the time, the company already made 10% of its revenue in Germany just by food!

Matten jr. enjoyed herself at IKEA

It leaves one wondering about the status and nature of global capitalism. In some ways, IKEA represents this approach like few others. Some scholars have argued that IKEA though, shaped by the social-democratic climate of his home country Sweden represents a somewhat softer or human form of a global corporation. But just skimming the IKEA page on Wikipedia shows that the company is anything but a saint. I well remember that, when the wall came down in 1989 in Germany, some former dissidents had a funny déjà-vu when visiting their relatives in the West for the first time: they could recognize some of their friends’ IKEA furniture as items they had to assemble while being imprisoned by the regime in Eastern Germany which supplied IKEA with some of their phenomenally cheap products...

For me, the company just represents, first of all, the ascent and the degree to which private corporations shape the public and private sphere of ordinary people these days. After all, one out of ten Europeans these days is said to having been conceived in an IKEA bed. It also shows, secondly, that at least from a consumer perspective in the Global North a multinational such as IKEA contributes significantly to enhancing the standard of living and providing affordable access to basic necessities of life. But most of all, it raises some growing and unresolved questions about the status of the social sphere in a world where markets and capitalism seem to colonize every last corner of our lives. No student at my current university has access to cheap food at IKEA prices; and many of the ‘common’ folks I saw last Saturday at IKEA certainly know that taking the family out for a meal anywhere else would probably be beyond their budget. The last time I saw a meal service in a Toronto hospital it was just outright revolting junk served in a public institution. But why is it only a ruthless, self-interested multinational which provides a better alternative at that level today?

I have not doubts about the motivations of IKEA in running such a restaurant operation. I am just puzzled by the fact that the result resembles so much what traditionally looked like the public provision of these goods. This said, I am not even sure if I want to add: this should still be available for common folks, be it in schools, universities, hospitals or even worker’s canteens in companies. But I also know why IKEA can and these other players cannot provide this any more...

DM

Top three fotos reproduced under the Creative Commons License

The Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage

Today we have another of our guest bloggers taking a turn on the Crane and Matten blog. Robert Strand from  Copenhagen Business School sets out why he thinks there's a distinctly Scandinavian approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR).

---------------------------------------------------------
I had the pleasure of spending time with Andy Crane during his recent visits to the Copenhagen Business School Centre for CSR, where I am pursing my Ph.D.  Andy asked if I would share a few words about the Scandinavian approach to CSR- a topic I find so interesting that I was compelled to leave my cushy corporate job in the US to move to the heart of Scandinavia and return to the days of being a poor student.


First off, why study CSR in Scandinavia?  Well, for one, by pretty much any measure Scandinavia leads the world in strong CSR performances.  Gather up a suite of your favorite CSR indices and you are sure to find a disproportionate amount of Scandinavian companies at the top.  And given that humility is highly valued here, this is not likely the result of crafty Scandinavian spin-doctors.


So why does Scandinavia lead in CSR?  Stereotypes are a real time-saver, so allow me to indulge in a few.  It seems to be part of the Scandinavian cultural DNA for business leaders to encourage the “feminine” activities of collaboration, participation, and demonstrate far more humility than what I was accustomed to in US industry where the masculine John Wayne type was more likely to be hero-worshipped.  Here in Scandinavia, conflict is considered best solved through negotiation and compromise and as a result Scandinavian companies have built trusting partnerships with NGO’s, government agencies, and even competitors to address common social and environmental challenges.  This has led to a “Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage” (Strand 2009) that I believe will prove to be a long-term competitive advantage for the region in the face of increasingly complex social and environmental challenges that companies cannot solve alone.

IKEA offers a good example of the Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage in practice.  At a going rate of about $10 for a pint of beer, Scandinavia is not exactly a prime place to manufacture low-priced furniture.  So IKEA sources from low cost regions, which exposes them to a host of social and environmental challenges not typically known within the friendly confines of Scandinavia.  Child labor poses a particularly complex challenge, and IKEA recognized that it did not possess the competencies to deal with this alone (which took a bit of humility, don’t you think?).  Therefore IKEA formed partnerships with UNICEF and Save the Children where in collaboration with these NGO’s, the suppliers, and local communities it was determined that in most cases the children’s best interest would be served if they could continue to work for IKEA’s suppliers, however at reduced hours and with access to schools that they previously did not have. A hasty pullout by IKEA in the face of consumer boycott threats could make the situation worse for the children who may be forced into alternative forms of generating money, including prostitution.Thus as a result of IKEA’s willingness to collaborate, these children are better off and IKEA enjoys a more stable supply chain and has credible partners in UNICEF and Save the Children to vouch on its behalf in the face of consumer boycott threats.

What’s that? Oh, you noticed that I repeatedly plugged my own expression “Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage” in a shameless act of self-promotion. Keep in mind - I’m an American, not a humble Scandinavian.

You can contact Robert at rs.ikl@cbs.dk. Check out his article in the Journal of Business Ethics: Strand, R. 2009. Corporate Responsibility in Scandinavian Supply Chains.  Journal of Business Ethics.  Volume 85, Supplement 1, pp. 179-185.