A government that does an end-run around the spirit of its own laws? And by exploiting green activists in the process? Impossible, you say? Then perhaps you believe that there was no gambling a Rick’s Café Americain?
A recent opinion column, titled “The Multinationals’ Dilemma — Gratify the Greens or Protect the Poor?” and written by James M. Roberts of The Heritage Foundation, made these very assertions, but without the tongue-in-cheek suggestion of disbelief. In his article, Mr. Roberts discusses many different issues, perhaps too many for the space allotted him, the foremost of which is the issue of how multinational corporations may actually damage economic progress when they acquiesce to the protest demands of various activist groups. This is a complicated and controversial issue, one which I have often discussed on this blog. But, this issue is not the topic of today’s post.
Rather, the topic of today’s posts is one of the minor issues as raised by Mr. Roberts in his opinion article. That issue is the financing of activist groups by governments and the reason for such financing. I previously dealt with this topic in my April 2010 post “Nice Work . . . If You Can Get It? Friends of the Earth Does.”
In that post, I noted that in 2008 Friends of the Earth Europe received over 50% of its annual income from a European government grant. Of their €1.5 million budget for that year, Friends of the Earth Europe received €790,000 in the form of a grant from the Directorate General Environmental, the environmental commission of the European government. (Figures per the International Policy Network (IPN). Please see my previous post for full citation.) As I said in the title of that previous post, nice work if you can get it, eh? For sure. But what’s even more interesting is the reason for the awarding of such financing.
Today, let’s discuss responsible consumption, which can cut in more directions than one. Let me explain.
A current topic discussed in the news is for consumers to assume responsibility for their purchases, taking steps to be as certain as possible that their purchases don’t support companies committing environmentally harmful acts or companies that may behave in a socially irresponsible manner. These are certainly worthwhile goals. The world could do with less environmental harm and less social irresponsibility, committed by either corporations or individuals.
Of course, one problem that consumers would have in making such decisions would be with the identification of such companies. The problem lies in the semantics; just what does “environmentally harmful” or “socially irresponsible” mean, and who defines such things. If you read the business press regularly, or even if you occasionally read this blog, you’ll know that many of those definitions are set by NGO and activist groups such as Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, and Corporate Accountability International. It is these groups, these “semantical gatekeepers,” who have appointed themselves to define what is “environmentally harmful” or what is “socially irresponsible.” I suppose that’s better than no one taking on this task, but such power in the hands of a limited number of groups can be unsettling. Perhaps what is needed here, in addition to more “responsible consumption” of companies, is more responsible consumption of these “semantical gatekeepers,” a “monitoring of the monitors,” if you will. But what’s to motivate the public in taking such an interest? How about a financial interest? The criterion of money usually hits home.
Whether you know it or not, if you are an American taxpayer, you support these semantical gatekeepers, the groups who decide from whom you should buy and from whom you should not.
How so?
Back in January of this year, I wrote a post about the compensation differences between the CEO of Greenpeace and the CEO of Exxon Mobil. From the research which was the foundation of the article, I found that, as a percentage of revenue, the Greenpeace CEO makes far more than the Exxon Mobil CEO. You may read that post entitled, “Greenpeace CEO Makes ‘More’ Than Exxon Mobil CEO?” by clicking here. Since it was published, that post has been one of the most popularly read on this blog. And since, on this blog, I like to give readers topics in which they have an interest, today I write a similar article, but this time it’s about two different “competitors.”
In recent weeks and months, Corporate Accountability International (CAI), an irregular competitor, has been very much in the news with their dual objective campaign against Mc Donald’s. Those objective are: (1) to get the company to stop promoting its Happy Meal product through the offer of toy giveaways (this objective is in partnership with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, see here and here) and, (2) to convince Mc Donald’s to retire their corporate icon, Ronald Mc Donald. All this CAI attention toward Mc Donald’s piqued my curiosity about this irregular competitor, CAI. So, in the same vein as the Greenpeace – Exxon Mobil comparison, and in the interest of giving my readership topics in which it has interest, I decided to do some research regarding the CEO compensation of these two adversary organizations. The findings were surprising.
This is the sixth post in the continuing series about Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and how it involves children in its campaigns against companies. To have a look at the previous five articles in the series, just click here.
Today’s post is a short one.
Recently RAN released a report regarding their assertion of how children’s book publishers use paper that is linked to the destruction of the rainforest. Well, as are many of RAN’s reports arguable, so is this one. But I am not, today, commenting on the validity of the information within their report or on the integrity of their research processes. My post today is made simply to draw your attention to RAN’s strategic choice of the continued employment of children into their anti-corporate campaigns.
Why would RAN choose children’s books about which to write such a report? Why not, say pulp fiction books? Or how about romance novels? Or mysteries? Or graphic novels? Or even porno magazines? Why not? Because those other genres don’t carry the presumed innocence that children’s books carry, the very innocence that is attached to children themselves. There isn’t as much shock involved in stating that, say for example, mystery novels use paper that is contributing to deforestation of the rainforest. No. Focusing on the children’s genre attracts a lot more media attention than would focusing on most other genres. And residing within that attention is the shock that RAN wishes to strategically leverage for their purposes.
Truly shocking only if their report is correct. But is it? Or are they creating shock in kiddy paper? You may take a look here at their report and then decide for yourself. And after reading that report, you might want to regard it within the context of the findings that I have made regarding how RAN uses children in its private political campaigns against companies.
Currently, I’m reading a terrific book entitled Good Cop, Bad Cop – Environmental NGOs and their Strategies toward Business. The title accurately describes the subject matter within the book. Edited by Thomas P. Lyon, the book is a collection of essays written by various experts within the field of the “private politics” between environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and business. In addition to articles by experts in sociology, economics, and political science, with each giving their own specialized view of ENGO and business engagement strategies, there are also articles by business and ENGO executives.
One of the articles in the book is entitled “Greenpeace” and is written by Kert Davies, who is listed in the book as being the research director for Greenpeace. Again, the title accurately describes the content. (Although, the book does not say if Kert is the research director for Greenpeace International, Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace Canada, etc.) In his article, Kert gives an historic overview of Greenpeace, and discusses its objectives and focus along with the organizational structure of that ENGO, as well as other topics. Toward the end of his article, Kert details some case studies describing some direct actions in which Greenpeace has engaged various corporations. One of those cases studies is titled the “ExxonSecrets Campaign.”
The ExxonSecrets campaign was a direct action against Exxon Mobil that started in 2001. Kert’s article states, on page 205 of Good Cop, that “the primary objective of this campaign was to remove or lessen corporate interference in U.S. climate policy . . . a key strategy was to put ExxonMobil in a negative light as a laggard among corporations, thereby motivating other companies to take proactive measures to avoid similar treatment.”
Although Kert’s article is not precisely clear on this next item, apparently one of the factors driving this Greenpeace direct action was a “leaked document” from the American Petroleum Institute (API), which Kert says was the subject of a New York Times front page article in April 1998. (I’ve read that New York Times article and will comment on it in the next paragraph.) Per Kert’s article, the “leaked document” indicated that Exxon had participated in the development of a group which would run a multi-million dollar, multi-year campaign “to promote contrary scientific opinions and raise . . . uncertainty among the public . . .” Also, per Kert’s article,
the leaked document stated, “Victory Will Be Achieved When . . . Average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of conventional wisdom” and “Media ‘understands’ (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science.”
More is to be learned about this group. Referring back to that New York Times article, which was entitled “Industry Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty” (by John H. Cushman, Jr., New York Times, April 26, 1998, p. A1) and aside from the article, in my opinion, being somewhat polemic in its perspective toward the global warming debate, the Times article stated that “the industry group said it wanted to develop a ‘sound scientific alternative’
Continue reading Greenpeace Wants You to "Have It Their Way"
My article from last week, “Rainforest Action Network . . . Does Indoctrination Count,?” drew a bit of attention on this blog. That article was the first in a case study series on how Rainforest Action Network involves children in its various anti-corporate campaigns. Today’s post is the second article in that series.
Below you’ll see a link to a Rainforest Action Network video that appears on YouTube.com, in the Rainforest Action Network channel. This video involves a toddler, to the seeming confusion of his mother, in declaring, toward the end of this 48 second video, that he doesn’t want any “rainforest destruction” in his cereal.
I’m assuming that this young man was a child actor hired for this specific RAN video. I assume this because I don’t realistically believe that any toddler is going to utter the words “rainforest destruction” of their own choosing. So, my question becomes:
Is using child actors appropriate in a politically-motivated campaign?
And, yes, this is politics. Private politics is the process of “collective interactions between parties attempting to advance their interests that do not rely on the law, public order, or the state.” (Source: Contention and Corporate Social Responsibility, p. 30.) NGOs practice private politics when they engage a company to get the company to change its behavior. In the RAN campaign of which this video is a part, RAN is attempting to affect a change in General Mills’ (the maker of Cheerios) purchases of palm oil, an ingredient in their cereals.
Concerning the above question, you’ve probably guessed my opinion, especially if you have read the previous post in this case study series, “Rainforest Action Network . . . Does Indoctrination Count?”
To be alerted about more posts in this case study series, “Rainforest Action Network and Children,” simply subscribe to the FREE RSS feed. Just click on the icon on the left or in the top right hand corner of this page.
|
|
