Accused of selling out

Of course, there are limits to this cooperation. Greenpeace is so anti-nuke that there is no room for discussion with utilities pushing nuclear power plants. And collaboration can be a tricky balancing act. Anthropologist and law professor John M. Conley at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill believes that environmentalists' shift from accuser to partner might co-opt and defang the activists. Even though the mainstream groups adamantly refuse corporate money, they could lose their edge. "Would Silent Spring have come out of a stakeholder dialogue?" Conley asks, referring to Rachel Carson's 1962 environmental opus.

Indeed, Greenpeace and others have been accused of selling out by some of their own members. Leipold admits that it's often hard to tell if companies are using activists' support as mere PR, or "greenwashing." But executives' original motives may not matter, he asserts. Once a company commits to phasing out toxic fire retardants, as Dell has, or to slashing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, on the model of Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), then activists can hold them to the promises. Plus, Leipold notes, companies have hired "sustainability" gurus to help them tackle social responsibility issues. "Even if the people who employed them are cynical, I think [the gurus] are turning out to be a subversive element in the companies," he says.

The green movement hasn't abandoned its swashbuckling tactics. Greenpeace's ship Esperanza has been cruising the Southern Ocean, ready to put itself between whales and the harpoons of Japanese whalers. But such tactics are often unnecessary. These days, the mere threat of bad publicity can force business to change. Executives remember how Nike Inc. (NKE) took a beating over labor practices in the mid-1990s. "No one wants to be the next Nike," says Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.

That gives activists new power. On the eve of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, sponsored by Coca-Cola Co. (KO), Greenpeace launched an e-mail campaign against the soft-drink giant. The charge: using a potent greenhouse gas in its 9 million to 10 million coolers and vending machines.

Coke responded quickly. "Our reputation is important to us. So rather than become defensive, we asked what we could do," says Jeff Seabright, Coca-Cola's vice-president for environment and water resources. Since then, Coke, PepsiCo (PEP), Unilever, and McDonald's (MCD) have spent $30 million developing a less damaging system, displayed at January's meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos with a "technology approved by Greenpeace" banner. This image building has a bottom-line benefit. "Providing environmental value is becoming a competitive edge for business," explains Seabright.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16