In a recent press statement, General Mills announced that:
General Mills supports the principles of the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and RSPO efforts to encourage and certify sustainable palm oil production practices. To reinforce those principles, General Mills purchases palm oil only from RSPO members – with preference for purchasing RSPO certified sustainable palm oil.
General Mills also said:
Our work with environmental organizations, including Rainforest Action Network, helped focus us on this important issue.
These are interesting developments because General Mills has recently been a target of Rainforest Action Network in an extended and coercive campaign against General Mills and in efforts by that NGO to “encourage” General Mills to change its palm oil sourcing policy.
This General Mills acquiescence to the RAN demands makes me wonder how long it will be until Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, or other NGOs involved in the palm oil campaign attack General Mills by saying that the RSPO policy is not responsible enough. I’ve seen this happen before, and this strategy has been well-documented in academic literature. (Hoffman, Andrew “Shades of Green, ” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2009, p 48)
NGOs often work in packs and tag-team a target that has displayed a willingness to acquiesce to one NGOs demands. Once a target accedes to the first NGOs demands, such as is the case here with General Mills, then the second NGO moves in for further attacks. Weakness always draws attackers.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
About two weeks ago there was an article in the Rapid City (South Dakota) Journal highlighting how several Greenpeace activists have yet to complete their court ordered community service. The community service was ordered on January 4, 2010 by a Federal district court as a result of the conviction of these activists in an illegal protest at Mount Rushmore during July 2009.
In the article titled “Most Greenpeace Activists Still Haven’t Done Community Service for Rushmore Stunt,” we learn that at least nine of the eleven Greenpeace activists have yet to begin their up to 100 hours of court-ordered community service. That community service sentence was ordered to be completed within one year of sentencing (i.e., prior to January 4, 2011), within the national park system, and preferably at the Mount Rushmore memorial. In the article, a Greenpeace spokesperson responded to the Rapid City Journal’s inquiries about the delay in the activists serving their sentences with the following:
All of the activists say their reasoning for not traveling to Mount Rushmore is that it would be too expensive; they can’t take the time off work, and they think it makes sense to have a smaller carbon footprint and avoid excessive air travel.
Certainly, this Greenpeace commentary begs the obvious questions.
How is it that the Greenpeace activists found the money to travel to Mount Rushmore to mount the original illegal protest?
Why is it that these individuals were able to find time off of work for the original illegal action but now somehow they can’t obtain the time off to “pay the piper”?
And why weren’t they worried about their carbon footprint before they departed to participate in an illegal action?
The answer to all three questions is probably just as obvious. Fulfilling the community service sentence doesn’t generate any publicity whereas the original protest action did. That’s how and why they found the money, the time, and the carbon footprint rationalizations to travel to Mount Rushmore. And if you read this blog regularly, and know even a little about the workings of Greenpeace, you will understand that the generation of publicity is one of Greenpeace’s top priorities. So, because the original action was potentially publicity-rich, it had a high priority for them. But, how high are their priorities toward paying the consequences of their actions? Well, apparently not as high. Why? Because serving their sentences does not hold as much potential for publicity. It’s a simple cost vs. benefit analysis.
However, if the media and activism analysts such as I continue to inquire as to the timely completion of these sentences, then those inquiries, like the Rapid City Journal article, would generate the additional publicity that Greenpeace craves, re-publicizing the original incident all over again. Could their delay in serving their sentences be part of a Greenpeace “reverse publicity” stunt? Perhaps.
So, maybe these inquiries only play into the hands of the media machine that is Greenpeace. If so, it might be
Continue reading Greenpeace Plays at Reverse Publicity?
As Monty Python used to say . . . and now for something completely different.
Through the miracle of Google Alerts, I recently noticed a unique type of social media protest. This one is a situation where activists are targeting for protest other activist organizations because those organizations are, in the opinion of the protesters, too mercenary and not activist enough. Yes, you read that correctly, and I thought it peculiar as well. Here’s the story.
First, a tiny bit of background is needed. Change.org is a social site as well as an activist organization, which I have profiled (Interestingly in that profile, I found that Change.org is most likely a for-profit corporation, but that’s a different story. See my Change.org profile for more information.) Through their site, Change.org offers anyone the opportunity to create a petition drive, enabling the petition supporters to easily send messages of protest to the target of the petition. The petition targets are often companies accused of committing various behaviors found objectionable by the petitioner and its supporters. But not always. You probably realize by now where I am heading.
Now here’s the “something completely different” part. If you read this blog regularly, you will have read that I believe that some anti-corporate activist tactics can be turned back around on the activists themselves. “Payback is always a bitch.” Well, here’s a good example of such turnaround payback and it involves Change.org which recently featured a petition drive entitled “Less money collecting, more actions!” The petition asks its “signers” to demand that various activist organizations “act more” and “collect less.” (Why am I thinking of Jerry Maguire?) The targets of the petition are:
Rainforest Action Network,
Greenpeace National,
Earthjustice ,
1Sky National Office,
Sierra Club National Headquarters,
and five other activist organizations. Interesting, isn’t it?
As of the date that I wrote this post, in a little over one week, the petition had only 23 signers with a goal of 800. I’d say that was pretty slow progress, especially for a petition that’s on a site that is as highly trafficked as Change.org. This activist vs. activist petition certainly has a way to go to hit its goal. But you may check their progress currently by clicking here.
It’ll be interesting, in the game of activist vs. activist, to see how far this protest goes and if the targeted organizations are responsive to their protesters.
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?
I saw this brief news article the other day: “Greenpeace Closes Down BP Petrol Stations in Central London Energy Protest.” Posted on Bloomberg News, this article described how Greenpeace closed between 35 and 46 London BP stations, depending upon which source you believe – Greenpeace or BP, during the morning rush hour on Tuesday, July 27, 2010.
Not only is this action just plain dangerous, but in terms of a Greenpeace strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the population, it’s just short-sighted and downright foolish. What I’m thinking about here is probably several hundred harried commuters who were unjustly inconvenienced by Greenpeace’s antics. Several hundred people who probably won’t come away with a good brand image of Greenpeace.
Now, I wonder how many of those extra-harried commuters were Greenpeace donors?
Recently Greenpeace announced it’s corporate campaign against Facebook. The reason for the protest? Back in February of this year, Facebook announced that it will build a new server facility in Oregon, which will be powered by an electric utility that burns coal for power generation. This presents an interesting conundrum for Greenpeace, one that I haven’t seen raised elsewhere. How?
Well, Greenpeace has no compunction about using Facebook, when it suits them, as a social media battle space in their anti-corporate campaigns. A free social media battle space, mind you. For example, they used Facebook in this fashion extensively and especially well in The Kit Kat Incident (a protest action and boycott against Nestlé) about which I wrote on this blog. And, in a recent Forbes interview with Greenpeace online specialist Laura Kenyon, Jeremiah Owyang wrote that Greenpeace claims over 1 million Facebook supporters which Laura indicated that Greenpeace would call upon in future campaigns.
So, if Facebook doesn’t accede to Greenpeace’s energy usage demands, and bow to the Greenpeace corporate campaign launched against Facebook – ironically enough on Facebook itself, will Greenpeace call upon its Facebook supporters to boycott Facebook in the same way Greenpeace called upon Nestlé customers to boycott the Kit Kat bar?
Will 1 million Greenpeace supporters suddenly disappear from Facebook, leaving Greenpeace scurrying to find a new, and free, social media battle space for future anti-corporate campaigns?
As the Brits say . . . not bloody likely.
Hypocrisy lives.
|
|
