Brief regarding: Kellogg
’s
Given you will not engage in a responsible manner of journalism stating clear claims, we are making best efforts to try to answer your questions. This is event by the fact that we proved you with over 100 pages of documentation to answer your questions. You wrote asking the following questions:
“Canadaland has reviewed images where a Me to We logo is on cereal boxes for Kellogg’s
brands like Mini Wheats and Special K. Kellogg’s, as you may know, has also
been reported on as a company that uses child labour in its supply chain. My questions: Does WE endorse products that are made with child labour?
When did WE’s partnership with Kellogg’s begin, and what is the scope of the partnership?
Why would WE, a movement founded on fighting against child labour, enter into a partnership with a company that uses child labour?
”
We wrote the following response:
“Again, you are factually incorrect here. Neither WE Charity or ME to WE has ever had a partnership with Kellogg.”
Your question began with an inaccurate statement regarding the ME to WE logo on cereal boxes. The ME to WE logo has never been printed
on any Kellogg’s brands, including, but not limited to
Mini
Wheats and Special K. Kellogg’s.
Furthermore, to provide you with an answer, our media team has reviewed our detailed and accurate partnership record. It is accurate that neither WE Charity, nor ME to WE, have currently or had historically a partnership with Kellogg. Furthermore, our accounting system shows that neither WE Charity nor ME to WE ever received a transfer of funds from Kellogg
’
s. As per our commitment to full transparency (as exemplified by 100+ documents and responses to all your detailed questions) we have further explored the question. Our US entities (WE Charity and the
ME to WE Foundation
) have a partnership with Walgreens. WE Charity and ME to WE Foundation have received funds from Walgreens. Walgreens, as a retailer, ran a retail promotion that encouraged customers to purchase various products in their stores, and when a customer purchased products in their stores (which included many products, including
Kellogg’s products)
, Walgreens independently then donated funds which had been set aside to support the work of WE Charity and/or ME to WE Foundation.
During such promotion at no time was the ME to WE or WE Charity logo (and at no time, ever) directly placed on any
Kellogg’s
products, including the specific products that you referenced. The
only
product that carried the Track Your Impact logo and/or ME to WE logo was a Walgreens brand of mixed nuts. Given you will not operate with basic journalistic integrity to provide the clear claim(s) for us to review to ensure accurate facts, our partnerships team has now invested many hours into searching through records and correspondence trying to find any documents that match your description. We assume that you are looking at a document that was created by a third-party agency, as part of a
“
pitch
document”
to the organization, which was never acted-upon. Given these facts, we strongly suggest that a responsible journalist would re-consider the validity of the source of this information (and any other information provided by this source). Did your source accurately portray this information? Did your source accurately present this information by clarifying that this document was
not
an internal document created by WE Charity or ME to WE, but rather created by a third-party, as a pitch to the organization? Did your source stress to you that this was a
“mock
-
up”
and was never acted-upon? Have you double checked the credibility of your source with another person on this important specific issue? Of course, a responsible journalist must determine the quality of their source. If a source is not providing fully accurate information and/or tainted information because of motivations for personal gain or bias,
or they simply have “and axe to grind”
, it is imperative that a responsible journalist seek to validate information, including by providing the claims to the subject for the opportunity for comment and/or clarification. We are, once again, asking you to do so.