I was recently invited to be a panelist at the Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate Integrity at The City University of New York’s Baruch College, which fostered quite a lively debate – well covered in The New York Times. I thought it worthwhile adding my speech to the blogosphere as a small effort to ensure Corporate America continues to pay heed to the significant issue of climate change and its related communications challenges. So here it is:
INTRODUCTION
From my perspective there should always be conflict between corporate PR and NGOs. We need to accept the reality that corporations exist to deliver products and services with a view to creating short term profit and hopefully long term growth. We hope that they act responsibly, but governments are there to regulate them just in case. As I see it in the post war era the role of NGOs has developed into an unofficial ombudsmanship role. They have ensured that corporations, and more importantly governments, do not lose sight of significant global issues such as child labor, food safety, famine, human rights; or in this case global environmental damage. Therefore, I believe we should all be worried if there was not some level of conflict between NGOs and corporate communications.
However, I do think that we are seeing evidence of greater alignment around many global issues, particularly with regard to the environment and climate change. Most corporations sincerely want to adopt some level of sustainable business practices. Climate change is arguably one of the most significant issues of this generation and business, governments and NGOs all have a responsibility to work toward a solution. If we leave this one to market forces alone we may well find ourselves managing rather than mitigating its impact.
KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
As we look at the issue of greenwashing I would like to focus on three broad areas:
- The historical relationship between business, the environment and media
- What really constitutes greenwashing
- What actions corporations can take to bullet proof themselves against greenwashing accusations and prepare for future legislation
HISTORY
In the US, corporations have a history of having to face the reality of their activities environmental impact. There have been three broad phases of corporate environmental damage driving government legislation, with a few more than memorable episodes in between – think Exxon Valdez. What I believe is more than a coincidence is that each of these episodes has coincided with dramatic changes in the nation’s media landscape.
You need to go as far back at the mid- nineteenth century for the first episode. At this point in time industrialization and unbridled business expansion was taking an increasingly dramatic toll on the environment - particularly with the intensive mining techniques being used in regions such as California’s Sierra Nevada. Public opinion was taking shape around the thinking and writings of people like Emerson and Thoreau and was galvanized by the rapid increase in local newspapers and the emergence of muckraking journalism. The government responded with the creation of the country’s first national parks (1864) and anti-trust legislation (Sherman Anti-trust Act 1890) aimed at the dominant, often heavily polluting cartels.
Fast forward to the 1960s and 1970s, and the second cycle in environmental damage driving public opinion and legislation occurs. The post war era saw an unparalleled surge in consumerism and manufacturing in the US, driven by more advanced and intense agriculture and manufacturing processes. Growing concern was initially galvanized by Rachel Carson in A Silent Spring (1962), a far reaching expose on the damage caused by pesticides and other chemicals. Again this was amplified by a dramatic change in the US media landscape, with broadcast television taking shocking images of ecological degradation into the nation’s living rooms – particularly the Cuyahoga River burning (1969), sick children at Love Canal (1978) and the evacuation at Three Mile Island (1979). All this drove an unprecedented period of environmental legislation including The Clean Air Act (1963), The National Environmental Policy Act (1970), The Clean Water Act (1972), The Endangered Species Act (1973), among others.
PRESENT DAY
We are now in a third, and arguably, a much more challenging cycle. They environmental threats are no longer on a local or regional level, but a global level. The stakes of dramatic climate change are much higher – with the potential to have a dramatic effect on humanity at large. This is not just hubris, but a threat based on scientific indicators from vegetation, ice cores, sea level change, glaciology and dendochronology. Work from politicians such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and Nicholas Stern’s 2006 eponymous economic review are highlighting growing government attention based on public concern. 
Much of this public concern has been galvanized by NGOs such as Greenpeace, The World Wildlife Fund, Earth Justice, The Sierra Club, among many others. Like before we are seeing a dramatic change in the media landscape driving this issue forward. The internet now gives universal access to information and potentially turns everyone into an investigative journalist – most recently seen with The Huffington Post Investigative Fund. Businesses are now subject to more scrutiny than ever before and are increasingly expected to operate in a fully transparent fashion.
This sets the context for the current cycle of corporate greenwashing. Despite the efforts of some – you have to read his great list of climate deniers from George Minbot – humans’ impact on the global climate is an accepted fact. Most worryingly even the most optimistic evaluations are horrifying. Public concern around the world is growing increasingly concerned and corporations with extremely effective marketing organizations are responding to public sentiment. From Big Oil to T-shirt manufacturers in Wales, everyone is telling a green story. Each has its own motivation and intention and each in its own way can likely be accused of greenwashing.
Greenwashing, coined by Kenneth Bruno and Jed Greer in The Greenpeace Book of Greenwash, Greenpeace (1999), made it into the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 1999 and is defined as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.” Take GE’s highly regarded Ecomagination campaign, it was certainly not made clear that this covered only 8% of its products. There are plenty of more obvious culprits too, such as Chevron’s recent advertising campaign and its challenge willyoujoinus.com. The OED definition assumes that greenwashing is an active attempt by companies to hide real facts in order to present a better image. However, over the last couple of years companies that are failing to act, or are not transparent are equally likely to be subject to the accusation.
WHAT TO DO
So, other than market to increasingly concerned consumers or hide wanton carbon creation, what should companies be doing? Bite Communications’ recommendation to its clients is to create a Leadership Ladder – built from a system wide analysis of business practices, impact and objectives. The public demands transparency and companies are going to need to deliver it. It also makes sense for companies to get out ahead of legislation, show stewardship and a vision for future long term profit. The Leadership Ladder is built on four straight forward, but involved steps:
SYSTEM: get an understanding of its business broad impact on the environment
SUCCESS: look at the impact of environmental initiatives and determine which ones qualify
LEGITIMACY: establish clear actionable and measurable goals
POSITION: craft an authentic story and platform for legitimate corporate marketing communications
CONCLUSION
We believe it is this sort of holistic approach that will effectively position companies for the realities of climate change and bullet proof them against accusations of greenwashing. Currently too many corporate sustainability efforts are a collection of pet projects or ill defined marketing efforts; many of which are collapsing under the strain of economic pressure. Also history tells us legislation is coming – as I discussed in a previous post. Coming out of this global economic downturn governments are likely to be more emboldened and drive deeper change through corporations. Companies need to position themselves for this, if nothing else other than risk mitigation. I am also hopeful that Corporate America will learn from the past and partner with governments and NGOs to mitigate rather than manage climate change.