In a recent article entitled “Friends of the Earth fire back at corportate ‘greenwashing’ ,” Metronews.ca writer, Romina Mc Guinness, filed a story about how Friends of the Earth (FOE) has pointed out various incidents of what they, FOE, believe to be corporate greenwashing. Well, this story really isn’t news. Stories about corporate greenwashing pop up in the news now and again. Many of them emanate either from FOE, or Greenpeace, or another ENGO.
No, what I found interesting about this story, other than the fact that they misspelled the word “corporate” in their story title (yes, that new word “corportate” is theirs, not mine), is the way that Romina put a “foundation” of facts under her story.
After listing several instances of greenwashing, as per a FOE source which she listed in the article, Romina lists a greenwashing claim of her own, saying how “even coal companies are claiming to be environmentally friendly.” As an example she cites German power-provider, E.ON, who she says “has plans to build coal-powered plants, yet in its advertising campaigns, the company focuses on its renewable power sourcing schemes.” Then she says, “The facts speak for themselves — energy website electricityinfo.org states that between April 2008 and March 2009 E.ON’s portfolio was: coal 43.4 per cent, natural gas 45.2 per cent, nuclear 6.2 per cent and renewables a tiny 0.3 per cent.”
Well, the phrase “the facts speak for themselves” got me curious. I thought, “Who are these facts that are speaking for themselves and, by the way, who the heck is electricityinfo.org?” So, I did a bit of digging. It wasn’t difficult to find the answers to my questions.
While recently reviewing the Friends of the Earth US (FOE) website, I saw that they introduced a new genetic engineering policy campaigner named Eric Hoffman. Congratulations to Mr. Hoffman. Perhaps at a future time, he and I can have some interesting discussions on issues of mutual concern. But I hope that those future discussions would be based upon better writing than that which I found in connection with Mr. Hoffman’s employment announcement.
As part of the FOE US introduction of Mr. Hoffman, FOE used the following lead-in passage:
Friends of the Earth is a fierce advocate of scientific progress, but corporations often seek profit from scientific developments with little regard for human health. We must take precaution (sic) to ensure new technologies don’t do more harm than good.
Now, I’ll put aside the minor spelling error in their second sentence. I’ll also put aside the fact that there was no date on this post, which is really just a “bush league” error when it comes to Website writing and management. Instead of those small errors, I’ll just concentrate on the meaning of the passage itself.
This approach of playing the “anti-corporate card” gets a bit wearisome, and is plainly just bad argumentation. The anti-corporate card to which I refer is the phrase, “corporations often seek profit from scientific development with little regard for human health.” Let’s take this phrase apart to see how it represents poor argumentation on the part of FOE and only weakens any argument that they are trying to make.
“Corporations often seek profit.” Yes. Okay, I can go along with that part. That is the function of a corporation, to seek a profit in its activities, many of which are directed at scientific developments. Thankfully they do that. Without profits, no one would ever get a merit raise in pay. And without scientific developments, people would be dropping dead from what are now, as compared to the past, “easily-cured” illnesses or from complications arising out of minor injuries. Now, let’s move on to the next part of the phrase and talk about “with little regard for human health.”
This part of the phrase conjures up a picture of research & development departments operated by zany, madcap scientists who indiscriminately toss new products out the door without adequately testing them, or at least without testing them to the satisfaction of government regulators within the jurisdictions in which their corporations do business. In my career, I’ve known many R&D personnel, and have found them to be painfully cautious and responsible personalities, almost to the point, perhaps, of being too cautious. I’ve yet to meet one who I would consider as either a businessperson or scientist with “little regard for human health.” If, indeed, these individuals, and the corporations for which they worked, “often” acted as portrayed by this phrase, their mad scientist-like lack of “regard for human health” would produce deadly products quickly killing thousands, drawing the ire of the marketplace, causing the corporation to lose revenue quickly, putting the
Continue reading FOE Plays Anti-Corporate Card
From much of my reading, I can see that the power of the NGO (non-governmental organization) is increasing. With regard to how that power affects business, my research shows that over the past decade NGO-influenced corporations are now becoming the norm rather than the exception. And from the projections I’ve read, it appears that that influence will only become greater over the next decade.
To go along to get along with this trend, multi-national corporations (MNCs) are moving, seemingly together as if in lock step, to establish corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs in order to meet the demands and expectations of NGOs, whether it be on environmental, social, labor, or cultural issues. And to help them craft their CSRs, MNCs now regularly collaborate with NGOs, bringing NGOs to the table as trusted advisors and de facto consultants. And when MNCs do this, which is increasingly often, they seem to do it with a “mea culpa” attitude.
Mea culpa attitudes belong only on the truly guilty. MNCs don’t give themselves enough credit. They suffer from a poor self-image. Paraphrasing Jessica Rabbit, “MNCs aren’t ‘bad.’ They’re just drawn that way.” Their “We’re so guilty” attitude is unjustified. MNCs should not sit themselves in a corner.
Yes, it’s true that MNCs are guilty of doing some “bad” things. Aren’t you? MNCs are operated by humans. Imperfect humans who make mistakes. But I fear their mea culpa is overdone because most, if not all, MNCs indeed do more “good” than “bad.” One doesn’t need to perform extensive quantitative analysis to realize this.
If the MNCs were not doing more good than bad, then such behavior would be obvious to the marketplace, which is not stupid contrary to the belief of many activists. The marketplace is not stupid. We can use the activist’s own thought process to address this issue. Ask any activist how “stupid” the marketplace was in electing Barack Obama to the White House and the majority response will prove this point. So, if the “bad acts” of any MNC outweighed the “good acts” performed to support the economy and society, then the marketplace would know that; the people would “vote” with their dollars, numbering the days of any wayward MNC.
Given this automatic economic voting mechanism, where “election day” for the MNC is every day, is the current and projected level of NGO influence upon MNCs really justified? Which party receives more legitimization?
Yes, MNCs make mistakes. I accentuated the obvious above. MNCs are operated by humans. But so are NGOs. NGOs are run by humans, imperfect humans. NGOs, as well-intentioned as most probably are, are not exempt from making mistakes, and performing “bad acts,” whether by accident, or by intention, or by just plain ignorance. But how is the influence of these imperfect organizations counter-balanced? Unlike MNCs, NGOs are not subject to the same automatic regulatory mechanism of the “vote.” NGOs are not subject to the same daily “election day” as are the MNCs. The motivations and the acts of the NGO are not examined and
Continue reading The Marketplace Is Not Stupid
|
|
