On February 4, 2010, I wrote a post on this blog about how well-resourced Greenpeace US was in the social media arena. In that article I mentioned that Greenpeace US would be a formidable irregular competitor for any corporation that woefully fell into their sights.
Well, I was correct. Recently, on March 17, 2010, Greenpeace took on Nestlé regarding its alleged participation in palm oil farming/deforestation in Indonesia. Although, technically, this protest action was initiated by Greenpeace International and not Greenpeace US, what I am calling “The Kit Kat Incident” demonstrates that Greenpeace, as a worldwide NGO, represents an organization that is a formidable irregular competitor.
A Direct Action Begins
Briefly, here is some background on The Kit Kat Incident. This protest arises as the next step in direct actions that Greenpeace has been applying against Nestlé for several years. These direct actions have been asking the food maker to reduce or eliminate its use of palm oil in its products. Greenpeace’s contention has been that farmers, particularly in Indonesia, clear-cut rain forests so that palms may be planted for later harvesting and supply to companies like Nestlé. In addition to their claims about deforestation and how that may impact climate change, Greenpeace also contends that such deforestation destroys the habit of the orangutan.
Gorillas, like orangutans, are powerful creatures.
The battle over palm oil reached a decisive turn on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 when Greenpeace International released a report titled “Caught Red-Handed: How Nestlé’s Use of Palm Oil is Having a Devastating Impact on Rainforest, The Climate and Orang-utans.” The report’s release was simultaneously supported by a social media protest campaign, initiated by Greenpeace and aimed at a popular Nestlé brand, Kit Kat. (Note: This strategy, of targeting a brand rather than the corporation at-large, is standard procedure for an anti-corporate direct action. Please note also that the Greenpeace campaign has been centered on the Kit Kat brand internationally and not in the United States where Hershey is the licensee and manufacturer.) That social media campaign is currently being touted in the mainstream press as one which ignited a “firestorm” on the social web. As this social media campaign has been already well-documented in the press, I won’t describe it here. However, if you would like more detail on this campaign, I direct you to a chronology of that firestorm which can be reviewed by visiting this link to Social Media Influence. When viewing that chronology, though, please note that it focuses on the related social media events only and not on broader issues within the campaign, like power and its abuse which I will address below.
The Action as Firestorm
A social web firestorm it has been, indeed. On Wednesday, March 24, 2010, a week after the campaign began, I reviewed the Nestlé Facebook fan page, which was the primary battle space of attack as requested by Greenpeace, and found that the page was still being heavily attacked, receiving negative posts at the rate of about one every ninety seconds. Though, a similar review I did on Thursday, March 25, 2010 showed that the frequency had slowed to one negative post about every five minutes.
Hot was this firestorm, but perhaps Greenpeace could have picked an even better primary battle space. Instead of targeting the corporate Nestlé Facebook fan page with, at this writing, about 94,000 fans, Greenpeace could have more wisely chosen the Kit Kat Facebook fan page with, at this writing, about 463,000 fans. The Kit Kat Facebook fan page has an audience that is almost five times the size of that for the corporate Nestlé Facebook fan page. It’s puzzling why Greenpeace did not select the Kit Kat fan page as the primary battle space, especially since Greenpeace focused the campaign’s attention on the Kit Kat brand instead of the corporation at-large.
Nevertheless, the Greenpeace social media campaign was well-executed, but it probably would not have spread as quickly or as far had Nestlé not “shot themselves in the foot” with some inept tactical decisions made by the company’s Facebook fan page administrator. Perhaps the company would have been able to preclude some of the damage had their corporate Facebook fan page administrator handled the initial attack on March 17 & March 18 in a more appropriate fashion. As their mismanagement of this corporate communications challenge has also been well-documented I won’t rehash it here, but if you would like to learn more about it I will refer you to CEC Insider for a good synopsis of that problem.
Broader Issues
As I mentioned three paragraphs ago, I want to discuss some broader issues, and not just the social media tactical events. These broader issues are not widely discussed in much of the press on this incident. So, since I believe that those issues are important, I will discuss them here and hopefully add more to the overall discussion and learning about The Kit Kat Incident. These broader issues concern “bullying” and the power that supports bullying.
Books such as Cluetrain (which was mentioned several times in some of the anti-Nestlé posts on the Nestlé Facebook fan page), Future Shock, and Powershift (both before Cluetrain), talked about the shift in power from corporations to the “masses.” Well, this paradigm flip has certainly been well-recorded over recent years, and its occurrence is no longer news. An application of this power flip is precisely what we are seeing in The Kit Kat Incident; the exercise of crowd power, realized and orchestrated by a savvy irregular competitor. But what I want to point out in this post is that this isn’t just a mere flip of power. My main point is that this situation demonstrates an abuse of power. And abused power is for what Greenpeace, and other NGOs, have so long denigrated the very corporations that they have targeted. Let me explain how they have abused their “Cluetrain” power. Let’s start with the Greenpeace demands.
The Demands
On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, Greenpeace issued the “Caught Red-Handed” report. If you go to page 12 of that report (page 9 on the PDF version), you will see the “Greenpeace Demands” listed. Those demands are:
To protect Indonesia’s last remaining forests, and to live up to its own commitments, Nestlé must immediately:
1. STOP THE PROBLEM: NO MORE TRADE WITH THE SINAR MAS GROUP
Stop trading with companies within the Sinar Mas group. This includes Golden Agri Resources and its subsidiaries, as well as Sinar Mas Forestry and Asia Pulp & Paper (APP).
Stop buying Sinar Mas palm oil and pulp products from third-party suppliers.
2. START THE SOLUTION : SUPPORT ZERO DEFORESTATION
Engage with the Indonesian government and industry to deliver a moratorium on forest clearance and peatland protection.
(A background note is needed here. It was Greenpeace’s contention that Sinar Mas, a palm oil supplier, conducted improper farming procedures (e.g. clear-cutting) which contribute to the central Greenpeace issue, that of climate change and the destruction of the orangutan habitat.)
Let me say before you and I discuss these issues any further, that I have no financial interest in this battle between Greenpeace and Nestlé. Neither party is a client of mine. I don’t own any Nestlé stock. And, quite frankly, I don’t really care which party “wins” this particular battle. So then why am I writing about The Kit Kat Incident? I write about this incident as an interested observer of activist organizations and their behaviors in media. I offer this post as an educational article, and as a different perspective, toward greater understanding of what activists do right and what they do wrong. My interest here is not financial, but I do have an interest in this incident, an intellectual interest.
Generally speaking, I offer this post because I have an intellectual interest in the proper representation of truth and the accountability of activists and NGOs to that truth. Not only should activists and NGOs behave with integrity toward truth, but corporations should also do the same. Specifically speaking, I offer this post about The Kit Kat Incident because I believe that if Nestlé, or any other company, or Greenpeace, or any other advocate organization, is doing anything “improper,” then they must “correct” that behavior. And apparently, in The Kit Kat Incident, Nestlé has done just that.
The Acquiescent Result
On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, the same date that the “Red-Handed” report was issued and the same date that the Greenpeace social web campaign was initiated, Nestlé issued the following statement: (Updated Note, May 26, 2010: Nestlé has updated this statement, at the Web addressed linked to, from that originally shown on March 17, 2010. The original March 17 statement no longer appears on their Web site. However, to support my March 17 dating of this statement, I refer you to another blog which picked up the statement on the referenced date. Their date stamp appears on the post. You may visit that blog here. You may also view other sites which picked up that statement with the March 17, 2010 date by clicking here.)
“Specifically, Nestlé has replaced the Indonesian company Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil with another supplier for further shipments. We confirm that Nestlé has only bought from Sinar Mas for manufacturing in Indonesia, and no palm oil bought from Sinar Mas has been used by Nestlé for manufacturing in any other country.”
“Regarding our sourcing of paper and packaging products, we confirm that we do not buy any materials from Asia Pulp & Paper (APP).”
“We have also joined other major purchasers of palm oil in making sure that companies, such as Cargill, understand our demands for palm oil which is not sourced from suppliers which destroy rainforests. At this point in time our suppliers of palm oil say they can’t currently guarantee that one particular company is excluded, due to the mingling of palm oil in a very complex supply chain. We will continue to pressure our suppliers to eliminate any sources of palm oil which are related to rainforest destruction and to provide valid guarantees of traceability as quickly as possible. We will not portray palm oil as free of such oils unless such guarantees are clear and reliable.”
Although they did not mention the Golden Agri Resources demand, it appears that Nestlé met the first demand, and on the same day as the report’s issuance and the start of the social media campaign.
The next day, March 18, 2010, Nestlé issued another statement, in a Q&A format, which addresses the second demand:
“Is Nestlé part of the “Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil” (RSPO) and what certification methods does it offer?
Yes, Nestlé has been closely associated with the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) through the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform since its inception and the company has now full corporate membership. This was established in 2004 to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil.Today it has over 300 members. RSPO have developed Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production.”
Although this second statement doesn’t address the second Greenpeace demand directly, it appears to do so indirectly and is addressed to the larger issue of how to go forward in a responsible manner.
The Bullying Sets In
But, the time after these two Nestlé statements were issued was the time when the Greenpeace social media campaign was hitting high-gear. Yet during this time period, I have observed that a high percentage of the Nestlé Facebook fan page posts asked the company to stop buying palm oil from sources that threatened deforestation. The company had already agreed to do that before these posts went up. However, during that time I observed no Facebook communication from Greenpeace claiming victory, asking its followers to stop, or even asking their followers to redirect their efforts to the second demand which was, as I noted above, not as clearly addressed. Instead, Greenpeace issued this statement from their Web site:
Sometimes a company can issue a reactive statement – like Nestlé did upon the launch of our Kit Kat campaign – that appears to wrap up everything for which they are being criticised in a neat little package, when in reality nothing changes. In this case Nestlé’s neat little package definitely stinks – and nobody’s buying it.
Nestlé announced it would cancel contracts with Sinar Mas, the largest palm oil producer in Indonesia, after we released a report exposing Sinar Mas’ involvement in illegal rainforest and peatland destruction to make way for their palm oil plantations. The report was released the same day as our ‘Have a break?’ video. The statement Nestlé made in reaction was not only nothing new – it won’t be anywhere near enough to protect Indonesia’s rainforests, orang-utans or peatlands. But they’re acting as if they’ve done enough – and luckily they don’t seem to be fooling anyone.
Well, perhaps they’re “fooling” me, because Nestlé was quite clear in its acquiescence to the Greenpeace demands, especially the first demand, saying not, as portrayed by Greenpeace as shown above, that they “would cancel contracts with Sinar Mas,” but rather saying that they “replaced the Indonesian company Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil with another supplier.” How much more clear could Nestlé have been? If there is any fooling going on here, it could be on the part of Greenpeace. The battle is pretty much over. Greenpeace just won’t declare victory.
Yes, I know that those who disagree with what I am saying here will use the comeback that it isn’t Greenpeace that is doing the bullying, but rather they will say that it is Nestlé that is bullying the rain forest and the orangutans. Yet, we have seen that Nestlé is “down” and has “cried uncle” while Greenpeace still continues to pound them with “Cluetrain” power. What’s this type of behavior reminds me of is street fights I witnessed as a kid, when one fighter (usually the neighborhood bully) was sitting atop the other unmercifully, and needlessly, pummeling the loser’s face into a pulp.
Conclusion
This type of bullying puts Greenpeace in a poor light. Greenpeace got what they demanded. Representing the outcome as anything else is an abuse of their “Cluetrain” power, a power that is granted to Greenpeace by the people. Asking their followers to continue, or rather not disengaging them, on an objective that has already been met not only abuses the time, and the trust, of their digital supporters, but doing so lowers the status of Greenpeace as a “reputable” advocate. In my opinion, this type of behavior just makes them look “small-minded” and only self-interested which are characteristics for which they denigrate their corporate opponents.
Thoughtful. But you missed a major plank of the Greenpeace demand set, which was to get Nestle, Unilever, and the other major buyers of palm oil to pressure Cargill, which still supplies both of them and still buys from Sinar Mas, to clean up its supply chain, and to implement means of guaranteeing that they’re not buying palm oil from deforestation.
This is not an unprecedented tactic. Cargill was previously the target of efforts by Greenpeace to stop the planting of Soy in the Amazon on deforested land. Greenpeace’s target then was McDonalds. McDonalds did precisely what Nestle should have done: gathered a critical mass of purchasing power and sat Cargill down and read them the riot act. The result was a moratorium, still in place, on deforestation for soy plantations.
Nestle and Unilever, between them, have sufficient economic clout to insist Cargill not fund deforestation. And Cargill has the power to shut down Sinar Mas if they don’t clean up their act. It may be a long chain, but it’s an effective one, and the most powerful component of all is the consumer revolt that Greenpeace has catalyzed.
That’s not an abuse of power. That’s precisely what people fund Greenpeace to do. And until Nestle actually rolls up its sleeves and works to solve the problem instead of making cosmetic changes, they’ve not conceded.
Corporate responsibility isn’t just about ducking criticism, or doing enough to get out of the crosshairs, it’s about doing the right thing.
Thanks, Brian, for your comment. This is certainly an interesting event.
Readers, please check the section labeled “The Demands” in the article above. Perhaps I “missed” a major plank of the “Greenpeace demand set,” which per Brian was that of Nestle applying pressure to Cargill, because that demand was not included in the “Caught Red-Handed” report’s demand list.
I have no stake in this fight either, and I am not associated with either of these organizations. But I question the report and the attack against Nestle because of the perception it leaves with the casual reader and observer that the deforestation and resulting environmental consequences are all Nestle’s fault.
If global production of palm oil is about 42 million tonnes, and Nestlé uses 320,000 tonnes (0.7% of the global supply by their estimate), where are the other 41.68 million tonnes going? And is Greenpeace addressing those companies and/or countries?
If the above figures are accurate, it seems to me that even if Nestle ceased using palm oil completely, there would still be a significant problem.
Also, if Indonesia and Malaysia produce almost 90% of global supply of palm oil, and Sinar Mas continues to violate Indonesian law, is Greenpeace working with the Indonesian governement to address that issue?
I am all for doing the ‘right thing,’ but are we really addressing the right target(s) here.
You stated that Greenpeace “have been asking the food maker to reduce or eliminate its use of palm oil in its products” No, they haven’t, they have been asking them to remove unsatisfactory suppliers of palm oil from their supply chains – a BIG difference.
If companies move from palm oil to other oilseeds, we’re going to need a lot more land converted to agriculture (palm oil yields almost ten times as much as other crops). Hardly a positive way to address food security and land use challenges.
Of course that doesn’t mean we have to accept palm oil from illegally deforested regions – but it is CRITICALLY important that corporations make sensible and well thought through decisions in response to these challenges, and banning palm oil is NOT the solution. Improving yields will help meet current and future demands, give economic security to small growers (about 40% of palm oil is grown by smallholders), and help protect rainforests. Win-win!
Greenpeace know this which is why their campaign focus is on specific growers, not palm oil generically – a subtle distinction missed by many (including Rainforest Alliance Network).
In answer to “where are the other 41.68 MT going?” – they’re exported primarily to China, India and Pakistan, the world’s biggest users of palm oil (the whole EU only uses about 16%). I’m sure Greenpeace would welcome ideas on how to leverage sustainable procurement in these Regions! They would also welcome effective engagement with the Indonesian government, but given that they are perceived as “green terrorists” out to destroy the economic stability created by palm oil and timber, there aren’t many open doors to push in the region.
All corporations that use palm oil HAVE to accept responsibility for moving to RSPO sustainable palm oil, and although there are many obstacles to be cleared before this objective can be met, the pressure has to be maintained to create a motivation for companies to pay the additional premiums associated with protecting rainforests.