Subscribe

Every so often, I come across a story that I think would work well for this audience, only to find that it is actually just too light to justify a full article. Never one to deny you informative (and interesting) content, I’ve decided to alternate my usual long writing format with the occasional collection of short stories, tied together by a central thread but otherwise distinct from each other. 

In V02 of my Short Stories, I’m sharing three tales of businesses behaving badly (and in some instances, getting away with it too). Read them and weep.

1. Amazon: Spycraft and other shenanigans

Stand aside, James Bond. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Amazon has been engaged in a covert operation called “Project Curiosity” for nearly a decade, using a shell company named Big River to spy on competitors such as Walmart, eBay, and FedEx. 

And yes, they really named their shell company Big River. As far as disguises go, this is the corporate version of putting on one of those pairs of novelty glasses with the fake moustache attached. 

Apparently the project, which began in 2015, was initially intended to compare the experiences of third-party sellers on Amazon with those on rival e-commerce platforms. However, it soon evolved into a more direct method of gathering intelligence on competitors. Big River operated warehouses in five countries and sold merchandise on platforms like Walmart, Best Buy, and Overstock. It also utilised logistics services from FedEx, UPS, and other competitors. Amazon employees involved in Project Curiosity were instructed to capture photos and screenshots of competitors’ pricing, cataloguing, and advertising systems. Big River / Amazon employees even attended rival conferences to gather exclusive information.

Amazon did not immediately comment on the matter, but a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that the company was merely engaging in “benchmarking,” the legal practice of comparing products to those of rivals. However, legal experts noted that Amazon’s covert tactics could potentially lead to corporate or industrial espionage lawsuits.

Several indicators pointed to the secretive nature of Project Curiosity. Amazon employees were instructed to keep the project confidential and avoid sharing screenshots via email to minimise the paper trail linking Big River to Amazon. Furthermore, Big River employees were advised not to disclose their connection to Amazon to logistics partners like FedEx.

Despite attempts at secrecy, there were more than a few signs of Amazon’s involvement with Big River. Some Big River employees listed Amazon as their employer on LinkedIn, and Big River’s fictitious Japanese streetwear brand, “Not So Ape,” listed a Seattle address on its webpage. Furthermore, Big River’s registration documents with the Washington Office of the Secretary of State included Amazon’s headquarters address.

By the numbers, Big River generated $125,000 in revenue from selling items on Walmart.com in 2023. According to a corporate filing in the United Kingdom, 75% of Big River is owned by Amazon. The expected costs of operating Big River in India in 2019 were $463,000, with projected revenues of $165,000, indicating that the shell company was not designed to be profitable.

With Project Curiosity only recently exposed, we’ll have to wait and see if any of the businesses that shared information with Big River will be waltzing Amazon to court. In the meantime, MI5 Amazon continues to deny that they were involved in any form of corporate espionage. 

2. Domino’s: Lawsuits, guaranteed

In October 1985, a Domino’s pizza delivery driver in Pittsburgh collided with another car while reversing out of the restaurant’s parking lot at high speed. Through the commotion that immediately followed, the store manager ran out, grabbed the pizza out of the crashed delivery vehicle and handed it to another driver, who took it and sprinted to his car. 

It may seem like a ludicrous shift in priorities, but for Domino’s employees at the end of the 80s, their 30-minute delivery policy was practically a matter of life and death. 

Domino’s rapid delivery policy was first introduced in 1960 by founder Thomas Monaghan, and played a significant role in the company’s initial growth. Monaghan, a former Marine, initially hired only two delivery drivers and focused on a minimalist, delivery-centric business model. By the 1980s, Domino’s became a leading pizza chain as Americans embraced the convenience of home delivery, driven by increased workforce participation and the rise of quick, easy meals like microwave dinners. People wanted pizzas, and they wanted them fast.

In 1985, Domino’s claimed that they could cook and deliver a pizza within 30 minutes. What started as a recommendation soon became a guarantee, with late deliveries resulting in free or discounted pizzas. This policy was hugely successful, with 95% of pizzas nationwide delivered within 30 minutes in the late 1980s. Domino’s corporate headquarters scrutinised performance monthly through mystery customers who evaluated delivery times and quality.

This 30-minute guarantee, however, led to reckless driving and numerous accidents. While they were never explicitly instructed by the company to do so, Domino’s delivery drivers would do anything from running stop streets to driving without their seat belts fastened so that they could exit their vehicles faster upon arrival. Domino’s knew of 20 fatalities involving its drivers in 1988 alone. According to the National Safe Workplace Institute, this meant that Domino’s delivery drivers had about the same death rate as miners, who had a fatality rate of ~35 per 100k.

Kenneth Behrend, the lawyer representing the couple who were injured in the collision with the reversing delivery man in Pittsburgh, leveraged this incident to build a case against Domino’s. He founded the Delivery Services Negligence Litigation Group to assist other lawyers in suing Domino’s using a negligent corporate policy claim. By 1990, at least 200 lawsuits had been filed against the company.

In late 1993, a lawsuit involving a woman struck by a Domino’s driver resulted in a jury awarding $78 million in punitive damages. This high-profile case, combined with mounting public pressure, led to Domino’s finally ending the 30-minute delivery guarantee. Thomas Monaghan announced the policy’s termination, acknowledging that despite efforts in safety and driver training, the guarantee had created a negative public perception.

And you thought being made to wear a Butlers uniform was the worst thing that could happen to a delivery driver. 

3. Nestlé: Not a right, but a need

Access to safe drinking water is widely considered a fundamental human right, not so? If a guest at your next dinner party were to argue otherwise, you would probably assume them to be crazy. 

Well, Nestlé feels differently about it. 

At the 2000 World Water Forum in the Netherlands, Nestlé was at the head of a group of corporations that influenced the official classification of water from a “right” to a “need.” Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, former Nestlé chairman and CEO, controversially stated in 2005 that “access to water should not be a public right.”. While the company has backpedalled on this statement for years – even dedicating a whole page of their website to it – Brabeck-Lemathe’s statement aligns with Nestlé’s practices of acquiring aquifers in local communities and bottling the water for profit.

One stark example is in Bhati Dilwan, a small Pakistani village. The advocacy group Sum of Us has initiated a petition against Nestlé for depleting the community’s water supply to bottle it as Pure Life water at a nearby plant. They claim that Nestlé’s activities have drastically lowered the water table, forcing villagers to consume contaminated water. Sum of Us argues that Nestlé’s policies deprive many people of essential water resources, warning that unchecked corporate control could worsen global water access issues.

Nestlé disputes these allegations, asserting that their operations are closely monitored and have no significant impact on groundwater levels. The company also insists that Brabeck-Letmathe’s comments were misinterpreted, emphasising their commitment to ensuring clean water access as a basic human right. Nestlé states that they collaborate with public bodies, communities, experts, and governments to promote effective water management.

Nevertheless, this is not the first time Nestlé has faced criticism over its business practices, particularly with regards to its bottled water. In 2008, a coalition challenged advertising claims made by Nestlé Waters that “bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world”. The group, which includes Friends of the Earth Canada, the Polaris Institute, the Council of Canadians, Wellington Water Watchers, and Ecojustice, filed a complaint under the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards against Nestlé Waters North America. 

The groups argue that Nestlé is attempting to mislead the public on the true impacts of bottled water, by using such phrases as “most water bottles avoid landfill sites and are recycled” and “Nestlé Pure Life is a Healthy, Eco-Friendly Choice”. The complaint alleges that some of the statements in Nestlé’s ads are contrary to guidelines that have been set by Canada’s Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association to ensure environmental claims are specific and verifiable.

If you’re a regular column reader, you’ll know that this isn’t the first time that I’ve written about dodgy practices at Nestlé (to catch up, check out this article here). As one of the five biggest companies in the world, it certainly feels as though Nestlé can face almost any controversy and come out mostly unscathed.

Editor’s note: if you want to give your kids exposure to what corporate greed looks like, The Lorax is an excellent choice of movie. The killer quote: “Our research shows that if you put something in a plastic bottle, people will buy it!” Here’s the scene from the movie with the commercial for the bottled air:

About the author: Dominique Olivier

Dominique Olivier is the founder of human.writer, where she uses her love of storytelling and ideation to help brands solve problems.

She is a weekly columnist in Ghost Mail and collaborates with The Finance Ghost on Ghost Mail Weekender, a Sunday publication designed to help you be more interesting.

Dominique can be reached on LinkedIn here.