Mothers, Babies, and Chevron

Over the weekend I was surprised when I saw a TV commercial highlighting Chevron’s efforts to reduce mother to child HIV transmission in Nigeria. At first response, I was excited to see such a significant topic being discussed during a football game, but after further review, I began to consider some of the deeper implications of this campaign. Chevron’s actions are certainly noble, but can we really consider them altruistic? Big Oil, including Chevron, has done significant damage to communities around in the name of progress (and profit). ¬†Elizabeth’s post about recognition made me wonder about this campaign. In our quest for maternal health issues to receive the attention they deserve, should we be prepared to partner with organizations that have clear ulterior motives? As long as we get the message out, do we need to concern ourselves with the whys behind it? Where do we draw the line between long-standing distrust and current need?

What do you think? Watch the video and sound off:

One thought on “Mothers, Babies, and Chevron

  1. I definitely see your point. this could be very exploitive as a “Hey look what we’re doing. Buy our gas because it’ll help people” when you don’t know how much it actually will help or if these people are being used as a prop. However, Nigeria is an oil rich country and Chevron is clearly tapping into this so in addition to paying the workers fare wages and giving them appropriate benefits, I think giving back in this way is overall a good thing. The commercial may seem exploitative but it does let people know that by choosing Chevron they can help the people who are producing the oil (assuming that the funds actually go towards it). I don’t think a cause has to be completely selfless to be right. In order for the campaign to work, Chevron still has to be around and thus they still have to be making money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *