Corporate Conscience

To the Editors of TheCrimson:

In an April 7 article on the links between J.P. Stevens company, Federated Department Stores (FDS) and Harvard I was incorrectly reported as saying that Harvard's ACSR and UCHSR were unsympathetic to the plight of Stevens workers and the call for a national boycott. I merely stated that the two groups were unaware of the problem, and I do believe much sympathy exists within the undergraduate organization.

However, a mere factual error on your part is hardly as disturbing to me as Maurice Lazarus' contention that FDS is uninvolved with the boycott. His error is not just factual but runs to the heart of the corporate responsibility issue. Mr. Lazarus, Prof. Milton Brown (Allied Stores) and other retailers erect the same false shield ofhneutrality whenever pressed on the boycott "We're just pawns in the hands of consumers," the argument runs.

Anyone with the least understanding of the retail sector knows what a sham this argument is. The Federated chain (Lazarus) and Allied Stores (Brown) both sell millions of dollars of Stevens products yearly with the help of millions of advertising dollars. Since so much of linen sales is done by mail, the relationship of advertising to Stevens products is clear: do not just passively reflect consumer preferences, they actively try to shape them.

Second, J.P. Stevens has spent millions trying to conceal their own tarnished name under a confusing variety of brand names, such as Utica and Tastemaker. Neither retail chain will commit itself to a truly fair consumer test--by indicating what products are actually made by Stevens.

Finally, the claim of consumer sovreignty does not address the people-vs.-profits issue. Would Federated and Allied continue to conduct business-as-usual with a foreign company discovered to be using slave labor? People buy Stevens because it's cheap, and that is so for two reasons: First, the company has made a concerted attempt to "dump" their products to beat the boycott, selling them below cost to keep the retailers on their side. Stevens board chairman Finley reported publicly to President Carter's office that "during the base period 1976-77 we sold our products substantially below cost."

Second, Stevens exploitation of its work force means lower wages, poor health and safety conditions, tiny pentions--in short, Stevens is cheaper because of the same factors leading to the boycott. Neither Federated nor Allied have ever shown a desire to sell Stevens goods at a price comparable to that charged by other textile companies.

Corporations like Federated think they can prove themselves responsible to the community by handing thousands to charities--concerned consumers should let them know that continued promotion and sale of Stevens linens belies their claim of being socially conscientious members of our community. Andrew Kahn '80