In an article entitled “Activists Growing More Sophisticated with Time,” as published on StatesmanJournal.com, Michele Betsill, a political science professor at Colorado State University, in discussing the influence that NGOs have upon organizational decision-making, said:
“There’s a need for somebody to translate the science and help decision makers understand what science has to say about the decisions that they’re making. And NGOs have often stepped in to fill that role.”
Are we as a society lucky that NGOs have stepped in to fill that role? Perhaps in some cases, but certainly not in all cases. Why? As the “Activists Growing . . .” articles continues it answers this question.
The problem is that advocates are not neutral, as scientists are supposed to be. ‘Science becomes linked to particular positions, and this gets to the whole politicization of science,’ ” said Betsill.
NGOs are advocates. They’re activists. They’re not neutral parties.
The scientists hired or engaged by advocate groups are likely going to give those groups the “findings” that they’re after, just as consultants hired by corporations might, a condition that advocate groups often like to point out. Hypocritical? Yes, but that’s just how the dance between these two parties rolls.
So, the next time you read “scientific findings” issued by Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Corporate Accountability International, or any of countless other advocate organizations, please consider the source of their findings and question their accountability. These partisan groups have a position, an organization, and employees as well as other overhead to maintain. Their reason for being is not to present objectively-based arguments.
On this blog I have several times written about the questionable “research” that sometimes issues from the Greenpeace offices. To have a look at those other posts, simply click here. Today’s post is another entry in that series of articles.
Greenpeace’s latest installment in their string of sloppy research is their ranking of U.S. supermarkets in the debate over selling sustainable seafood. This “report” is entitled “Carting Away the Oceans” and may be seen by clicking here. This document devotes much space to critiquing various supermarket chains regarding their individual sustainable seafood policies (pages 12 to 34 of “Carting Away the Oceans“). The document also reserves quite a bit of room for Greenpeace to claim victory in this supermarket campaign which they have conducted for the last few years (page 4 of “Carting Away the Oceans“), even though those claims of victory are unsubstantiated.
On those pages referenced above, as well as on others in this document, Greenpeace mentions repeatedly the “red list species” and refers to them as unsustainable. Yet, in this document it does not comprehensively list the species on the “red list,” which is apparently a list of Greenpeace’s own making, nor, and most importantly, does Greenpeace demonstrate in the document why those “red list” species are “unsustainable” in an objective sense (i.e., in the opinion of third-party experts) or even in a subjective sense (i.e., in the opinion of Greenpeace). There is not a hint of scientific evidence, objective or otherwise, as to why Greenpeace thinks certain species are endangered. This document is not referenced and has no sources cited, other than the occasional mention of Greenpeace surveys which were used to rank the supermarket chains in the sales of sustainable seafood.
In other words, the reader is expected to accept, on face-value only, Greenpeace’s assertions and rankings in this document. The degree of that acceptance would, of course, vary by reader and, I think, be determined by the value of the Greenpeace brand held in that reader’s mind. The higher the brand image in the mind of the reader than the more believability this document would hold.
Given the transparency and information-rich environment that we now experience via social media, an environment that organizations like Greenpeace use to attack their corporate opponents, it will be interesting to see if the public catches on to the lack of substance in this Greenpeace document or in others produced by that organization.
Recently I reviewed a new chemical plant inspection report authored by Greenpeace. This one is titled “Greenpeace Security Inspection Report: Kuehne Chemical, South Kearny, NJ.” I was looking forward to a clever, and relatively objective, report like the one Greenpeace filed concerning the Du Pont facilities in southwestern New Jersey and southeastern Pennsylvania which I reviewed in my blog article “This Time . . . Kudos to Greenpeace.” But they disappointed me.
All that this eight page Kuehne report amounts to is just a waste of space that rehashes old information known for years by the public. The original “research” done for this “report” is basically non-existent. Greenpeace tries to present original research on pages 5, 6, and 7 of this document, but they squandered the opportunity in this thing they call a report. On those pages appear photos of the Kuehne facility, all taken from public property such as next to the front gate and from a highway bridge spanning the facility. I thought, because they were able to get such public access, that they were going to make a point about security threats, similar to the way they made their points in the report about the Du Pont facilities. Instead, next to photos showing their close approach, they listed captions such as:
“These pictures were taken from the pedestrian walkway on the Pulaski Skyway. There is a fence on the skyway that runs part of the length of the facility and is meant to add security to the facility but, as demonstrated by the photo, when standing on either side of the fence, one has a clear, unobstructed view of the facility. This facility failed inspection because it puts 12 million people at risk including inhabitants of New York City.”
Not only did they just take a lazy short-cut by applying these same three sentences to three of the six pictures taken of the plant from public property, but they didn’t even explain the third sentence ,”This facility failed inspection because it puts 12 million people at risk including inhabitants of New York City.” (Incidentally, this sentence, and direct variations, was lackadaisically applied to all six photos.) Well, why is there a risk? Just because the plant is there? Explain please. Give us your rationale.
But they didn’t explain. They didn’t give a rationale. They simply made another unfounded statement, something at which Greenpeace, sadly, has become all too adept.
What a disappointment.
And, oh yes. On page 5 of this “report” PDF, Greenpeace makes an unreferenced statement that the Kuehne plant had eight chlorine release accidents in the time period of 2000-2010. But on the Greenpeace report summary lead-in page, from which one would download this “report” PDF, Greenpeace says that for the time period 2000-2010 there were ten chlorine release accidents, of course again unreferenced. Well, which is it? Eight or ten? And from where do these variable numbers come, anyway?
Sloppy. So sloppy. Too sloppy.
Although in this blog, I observe strategic and tactical weaknesses of various NGOs and
Continue reading More Sloppy Research from Greenpeace
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.
Two weeks ago Greenpeace launched their “Caught Red-Handed” campaign with a report of the same name. The issuance of the report was supported by a simultaneous social media campaign against Nestlé. These events were well-documented in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media. I summarized the situation in my blog post titled “The Kit Kat Incident and an Abuse of Power,” and you may go to that article for a synopsis if you are unfamiliar with this incident.
The subject of today’s post is the report itself, “Caught Red-Handed,” or rather the research integrity thereof. If you go to the report, which you may do by clicking here, and turn to page 13 (page 8 on the PDF version) you will see Greenpeace’s “Sources of Evidence” page. Or, as it would be more commonly called, the Bibliography. On this page of listed sources, Greenpeace shows a total of 73 sources. If you read through those sources, you will find that fully 22 of those sources are from Greenpeace documents or files. This means that 30% of the total sources used in this report were internal, and not of a diversified and external nature.
When I attended graduate school, I was instructed that, in performing research, a researcher should not use their own work as references in a research paper. And if doing so was absolutely, positively necessary, then reference to that researcher’s own work should be employed very, very sparingly. The reason against a researcher not using their own research in subsequent papers is obvious. The more diversified research sourcing is, the stronger is the research argument. “In-bred” references only weaken a case.
Is 30% a “sparing” employment of internal sourcing? Does 30% internal sourcing in “Caught Red-Handed” weaken the study’s argument? I suppose that depends on your point of view. My view is that 30% internal sourcing is highly excessive, and seeing that high of a percentage in this Greenpeace report makes me call into question the integrity of their research and, consequently, the validity of the Greenpeace argument presented in “Caught Red-Handed.”
Is this a case of being “caught red-handed” in an issue of reliable and fair research?
You know my opinion; you’re certainly entitled to yours.
Wondering how your company can become more competitive in today’s “anti-corporate” business environment? (Or at least a business environment that’s portrayed as being “anti-corporate.”) Hey. Who isn’t? Apparently it’s “known” that today’s company operates in an “anti-corporate” environment. So let’s talk about it.
I recently finished reading “Engaging Fringe Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination” by Stuart Hart and Sanjay Sharma. In this 2004 article from the Academy of Management Executive, the authors offer up the theory of engaging with “fringe stakeholders” in order to reach two objectives. The first objective, which is related to anti-corporatism, is about avoiding what the authors call “smart mobs,” which they define as the wrath of individuals that can be created and mustered online for the purpose of spreading negative information about the company. The second objective the authors describe is related to efficient product development. The achievement of both of these goals depends upon getting pertinent information from the fringes of the stakeholder sphere which surrounds a company. The article details how companies may go about achieving these goals.
The achievement of the second objective, more efficient product development, is described with various case studies showing how certain corporations have extended their market research operations to the outer fringes of the societies in which those companies do business. From this “fringe information” collected have come new initiatives for products designed to solve problems that the companies had not known existed prior to their journey to the fringe. Thus, the term “competitive imagination” used in this article’s title. The insights gained through the fringe market research give those companies who conduct it a competitive leg up on their competition. Very sound reasoning. No objections here at all.
There is a double-edged sword in this approach, one that cuts toward both objectives. The authors maintain that by performing this type of informational outreach, not only may a company discover new consumer insights for application within product development, but the company may also simultaneously engage with fringe stakeholders, or what they describe as “non-salient” stakeholders, who had previously been ignored by the company. As I pointed out earlier, this is the first objective that the authors raised. Hart and Sharma say that through this engagement and interaction with, and from the subsequent input from, these fringe stakeholders, the company may preclude a public relations backlash initiated by these fringe actors, who may manifest as the “smart mob,” against future company actions. Again, I have no objections here. Proactive communication can serve as a preemptory tactic, reaping future benefits. But what I do object to is the premise upon which Hart and Sharma base most of their thesis. That premise is found in one pair of statements near the beginning of this article.
On the second page of this article we see the passage,
The power of governments has eroded in the wake of globalization and the growth of transnational corporations with global supply chains that span several continents. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups have stepped into the breach, assuming
Continue reading One Source Doesn't An Anti-Corporate Environment Make
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
