Corporate Greening or Greenwashing?
Posted by
tgirsch
This week’s Shepherd Express (a Milwaukee Indy paper) has a pretty good article on what to make of increasing cooperation among corporations and environmental groups:
Many environmental activists seem to welcome the notion of a convergence of business interests and green interests, but it all seems too good to be true. If eco-friendly policies are entirely “win-win,” then why did corporations resist them for so long? It is hard to believe that the conflict between profit maximization and environmental protection, which characterized the entire history of the ecological movement, has suddenly evaporated.
Either corporations are fooling themselves, in which case they will eventually realize there is no environmental free lunch and renege on their green promises, or they are fooling us and are perpetrating a massive public relations hoax. A third interpretation is that companies are taking voluntary steps that are genuine but inadequate to solve the problems at hand and are mainly meant to prevent stricter, enforceable government regulation.
In any event, it would behoove enviros to be more skeptical of corporate green claims and less eager to jump into bed with business. It certainly makes sense to seek specific concessions from corporations and offer moderate praise when they comply, but activists should maintain an arm’s-length relationship to business and not see themselves as partners. After all, the real purpose of the environmental movement is not simply to make technical adjustments to the way business operates (that’s the job of consultants) but rather to push for fundamental and systemic changes.
Read the whole thing.
I used to think Earth Day was a big deal. No more, not since its been totally corporatized. The MNCs must doing some polling/marketing.
Comment 6/21/2007
“the real purpose of the environmental movement is not simply to make technical adjustments to the way business operates (that’s the job of consultants) but rather to push for fundamental and systemic changes.”
Other than for a small minority, the environmental movement is all about political control, financial gain, and power. Yes, the real environmentalists are truly seeking to make changes for the environment but the vast majority from what I’ve seen aren’t all that interested in the environment.
If Al Gore wasn’t making a ton of money and positioning himself to make a run for president as the “environmental candidate”, his interest would drop like a rock. (that of course, is simply my opinion)
Comment 6/21/2007
“If eco-friendly policies are entirely “win-win,” then why did corporations resist them for so long?”
Ummm… because in the past they were not win-win? If the buying public is not interested in paying for green products, it ain’t win-win. But, if there is a societal shift that results in more value being assigned to green products, then the market will be willing to pay for them. That makes it win-win. Next question.
Comment 6/21/2007
because in the past they were not win-win?
I’m not sure I share your enthusiasm that enough has changed among the buying public to make it magically a “win-win” today when it wasn’t yesterday. I share the author’s cynicism: it’s much more profitable, even today, to have green PR than to actually be green. Companies like GM still make the bulk of their money on things like Hummers, and use a small bit of that to try to present a green public image despite this (hopefully the planned Chevy Volt is a true sign of a sea-change).
In other words, I seriously doubt it’s “win-win” even today.
Comment 6/21/2007
GM is a pretty poor example of anything other than a company that is already dead, just not yet buried. And in any event, I think auto manufacturers can hardly hide behind a “green” image if their fleet gas mileage numbers are poor. Is it conceivable that a green-conscious person would buy a Hummer because GM donated $300,000 to an environmental group, or reduced pollution at the Flint plant? I doubt it. Auto manufacturing, probably more than any other industry, does not need nor will it benefit from a green image. Every auto for sale has an EPA mileage estimate plastered on the window. The buyer makes a fully informed choice WRT gasoline use when s/he buys a new car. One does not buy a green image when one buys a car, but rather a reality.
Also note that I did not claim that a win-win situation exists today, I was merely stating under what conditions it would exist. I share your doubt that we are at that point yet. Tack another $1.50 onto the price of gasoline and increase the cost of electricity another 50% and I think we will be there - at least from an energy perspective.
Of course I am considering green products, which is somewhat different from a green corporate image. But my intuition tells me that once people start trying to minimize their energy use they will become more environmentally conscious in general. An assumption that you might rightfully take issue with.
Comment 6/21/2007
One of the potential problems of environmental groups heaping praise on corporations for minor, token, or merely image, tweaks is the idea of the false consciousness.
We’ve seen this in the way people eat. The huge companies mangle the meaning, or significance, of “low-fat,” “organic” or whatever the advertising hook du jour is and then people think that they are making meaningful changes in their lives by making a choice, when they are really not.
Oh, you mean all I have to do to save the world is buy a red cell phone? You mean, I can fix all these problems though consumerism?
Now, this is admittedly a difficult and complicated issue. I don’t want to argue that these things are net-negatives, per se. I mean, it is better that five bucks go to a good cause than not, but that’s where the job of the activists comes into play.
A personal trainer’s job is to whip you into shape. It’s not to hold your hand and praise you for doing one crunch and tell you, “Great job, now let’s go hit the juice bar.”
Comment 6/21/2007
Ted:
I see your point, but the problem with the EPA stickers is that the tests are horribly dated, so that the results aren’t terribly accurate. Last I saw, it was recommended that you subtract about 15% from the listed fuel economy to get an accurate figure.
Comment 6/22/2007
As to corps deciding that profit and green are win-win, couldn’t it be the case that it has always been win-win (Conservationism is just long-term exploitation, after all.), but it requires a long view, which corporations are famous for not having. If a company can use known data to predict the future for only just as long as it has data into the past for, than it’s planning will become longer- and longer-term over time. The change could be just a matter of learning that green really is a good thing.
That said, skepticism on all sides is warrented. Corps can be evil, and greens can be nuts, both pretty easily, even when there are good, sane counter-examples.
Comment 6/22/2007
Tgirsch, I’m sure you agree that reducing all EPA milage estimates by 15% will not change the ranking of vehicles wrt gasoline use. Given that, I’m not sure I see your point. Heck, most efficiency ratings (SEER, R-Value, etc) are so abstract that they represent an ordinal rating system to all but the most informed purchasers. MPG, even if imprecise, is easier to deal with than that.
Comment 6/23/2007
15% is just a ballpark. In practice, it’s nowhere near that linear. Larger cars like SUVs tend to be roughly accurate on the highway estimates and greatly overestimated on the city mileage, while hybrid cars tend to be overestimated on the highway and underestimated in the city. Because of this, I’d disagree and say that SEER and R-value are actually easier to deal with for comparative purposes.
But I’ll be the first to agree that I’m picking a nit. My point was that the EPA sticker falls far short of your “fully informed choice” standard. And it’s a pet issue of mine that the EPA desperately needs to update its test MPG suite.
Comment 6/23/2007