The Barnardo’s deal with KFC doesn’t sit well with me

You know that feeling when you read something and it makes your heart soar and slouch at the same time? Well, I do and I’m not afraid to admit to some complex, rather mixed and possibly entirely contradictory feelings.

Barnardo’s, that consistent defender of disadvantaged and vulnerable children and young people, has partnered up with “chicken-based quick service” restaurant giant KFC, once but no longer known as Kentucky Fried Chicken. They have been piloting a programme of training and work placements in the North West for Barnardo’s service users, it’s gone very well,  so now the national roll-out is announced.

What sounds brilliant about this partnership is that KFC is well known for its staff training and development programme; they have pathways for their workers that can lead to degree-level qualifications. They have shaped their training to help young people who are very vulnerable to move into a working environment, building their confidence while providing transferable skills,  and they have clearly created something that has worked very well. Their publicity includes testimony from young people who have gone through the programme and benefited enormously. I’m happy for them.

But, I have to confess to my unease as I read about it.

Let’s get the first thing out of the way. Stop me if you’ve heard it, but no private company of that size gets into corporate social responsibility activity and partnering with charities without a really strong business case, whether it’s sales or workforce. We all know that, so let’s put it to one side.

No, my first reaction was a sigh that Barnardo’s chose to partner with a fast-food company. We all know that rates of obesity amongst children and young people are rising and that poor and disadvantaged communities have more fast food outlets than their better-off neighbours. Disadvantaged young people in this country are being harmed by poor diet, so is it wise to partner with one the world’s largest producers of processed food?

And then I thought about the environmental impact of some of these very large fast food companies. KFC has hired Edelman to manage their reputation in Australia after accusations that its paper products are sourced from protected rainforest and, perhaps inevitably, the company is under constant attack by those who accuse it of animal cruelty – something KFC refutes with gusto.

Then I felt a bit depressed and wondered if we really ought to be aspiring to training and work experience for disadvantaged young people in a wider range of companies and organisations, not just the food service industry. Was it possible that this is another example of low aspirations in action? Fortunately, I could cheer myself by thinking about From Care2Work’s partnership with Marriott Hotels.

I think the thing that bothered me most was the gnawing feeling that the response to my unease would be the well-founded argument that, in a time of appalling youth unemployment, any job training – any job – is a good thing, and we shouldn’t be sniffy about from where those opportunities come, so long as a fair wage is being paid.

And here’s the thing: despite my unease, I’m concluding that it’s true, perhaps there are times when we stretch our values a little. Just one proviso though, I still get to argue for something better.

  • Carl Allen

    Perhaps but maybe not KFC has lowered the entry bar but then why not paid placements?

  • Barnardo’s Children’s Charity

    Barnardo’s has partnered with KFC for the very reason Lucy Sweetman outlines in her article: the restaurant chain is an industry leader in training and development, and has a clear affinity with young people (over 70% of their restaurant workforce are under the age of 25).

    Having been named Britain’s Top Employer 2012 and voted a Great Place to Work for three years running, KFC has now committed to working with Barnardo’s to create individually tailored placements for vulnerable young people facing barriers to work. Young people from Barnardo’s who face a range of challenges and may never have entered a work environment before, have the opportunity to prepare for and participate in a restarant placement, where they will learn key transferrable skills, such as timekeeping, customer service, presentation and teamwork.

    Barnardo’s believes that being healthy is an important part of a child or young person’s well being, but so is having opportunities to learn and to work. KFC is a responsible business, which offers a wide range foods and has made major nutritional improvements over the last few years. The average customer visits KFC only every six weeks for an occasional treat and all their food can all be eaten as part of a balanced diet.

    Barnardo’s partnership with KFC is just one example of how the children’s charity works to help vulnerable young people find opportunities in a wide range of industries. Depending on ability, desire and need, Barnardo’s might help a disadvantaged young person get experience in hairdressing or mobile mechanics and now, we can offer experience in a KFC restaurant. We are calling on businesses and organisations of all kinds to partner up with the voluntary sector in this way, to ensure that young people are given the chance to gain valuable experience in the workplace, while receiving the support that they need.

    KFC and Barnardo’s are taking the initiative to open doors to the UK’s most vulnerable young people, in order to give them a fighting chance of achieving their potential, regardless of their background.

    Stephen Oversby, Barnardo’s Director of Employment, Training and Skills

    James Watts, KFC’s UK & Ireland Vice President of Human Resources

  • Charlotte Parker

    I agree entirely that organisations need to look at the type of volunteer they require rather than the amount of volunteers they have. A volunteer army would be great – but only if those volunteers have the right skills and personality for what the organisation needs.

    The charity that I work for (The Air Ambulance Service) has recently changed the volunteer pages on the website so that there is a clear definition of each volunteer catergory. We also have a ‘What do you expect from me?’ section.

    If people are to give up their precious time for free, then it is important that they do so for an organisation and role that is right for them, and in turn if the organisation is to take the time to register and train the volunteer, it is important that the volunteer is right for the Charity.

    However, I do agree with Andy that the Give More campaign seems to be more of an awareness raising campaign than a recruitment campaign. And anything that raises the awareness of the positive impact that volunteering can have on organisations, society, and individuals, has to be better than nothing.

  • Debra Allcock Tyler

    If you look at the evidence over several hundreds of years of revenue sources for our sector, the only sustainable of income into charities has been grants and gifts. They are relatively recession proof (indiviual and trust giving is largely unaffected by the general economic climate) and the giving is for purpose. It is a popular myth that business models make charities more sustainable – in fact there is not a single charity who survives purely on trading income.

    Further, many people in need of charity services are there precisely because the private and public sector model has failed them in some way. There is nothing wrong with adopting a different model to serve vulnerable people and causes. In fact, history shows us that the traditional funding model for the sector is highly reliable.

  • Joseph Nagle

    I don’t think charity can be defined as: “those that have, giving to those in need”. Charities have much to offer donors and donors get a huge amount from charities: recognition, thanks, a feeling of altruism, knowledge that they have helped/given something back. That is why grants and gifts remain resilient in poor economic climates – because people still want those things.

    I think any sensible non-profit strategy has got to diversify income streams and any responsible board of trustees should be constantly looking at ways of maximising income streams. I think it would be a disaster for charities to move away from grants but there is nothing wrong with adopting more diverse income streams including charging more for one service in order to subsidise another. On a micro scale that would be a small community centre charging 50p for a cup of coffee in their community cafe when it cost them 5p to produce while on a macro scale it would be comparable to concessions for membership of The National Trust or running charity shops.

    I think that asking yourself how you can stay sustainable if you keep offering services for free is the most important question to ask yourself. If the answer is “I can’t!”… what do you do then?

Latest jobs Jobs web feed

  •  

    September 2012
    M T W T F S S
    « Aug   Oct »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Most read posts

  • Most commented

  • Tags