Holding corporations accountable for climate change
Although China has overtaken the United States in recent years as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, during the same period its production of export goods has been responsible for half of the growth in China’s carbon emissions. Most of these items are destined for the United States and other developed countries, meaning that, in effect, high-consumption industrialized nations have ‘off-shored’ a portion of their carbon footprints to the developing world. Since responsibility for these emissions lies largely with consumer countries, an equitable response to the climate crisis requires a significant shift toward more sustainable consumption rates in the developed world. Likewise, multinational corporations, who rely on manufacturing in industrializing nations, need to take responsibility for reducing their carbon footprints there.
With $10 million to invest in solutions for global climate change, I would first invest $8 million over the next five years in a consumer education and corporate accountability campaign. The campaign would model itself on the global sweatshop awareness movement of the 1990s, which spurred a sense of moral urgency among consumers and famously targeted Nike for the labour conditions in its overseas factories. Like the anti-sweatshop movement, the campaign would use consumer choice as a powerful tool to hold multinational corporations accountable for the conditions of production that they create in the developing world.
Although manufacturers and retailers already see some consumer desire for ‘green’ products, in the absence of verifiable standards that would give meaning to this label, claims to eco-friendliness may be little more than a marketing tool. The resulting phenomenon of ‘greenwashing’ undermines necessary action on climate, and may even convince the public that enlightened corporations are voluntarily implementing eco-friendly practices sufficient to address the climate crisis. The corporate accountability campaign would take aim at a number of industry leaders in different sectors that may have ‘green’ images but demonstrate poor records on environmental issues.
To identify appropriate corporate targets, the campaign would make use of existing research measuring the climate impacts of global companies, such as that undertaken by the Carbon Disclosure Project, and support additional studies where necessary. This research would take into account criteria such as lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, energy use of supply chain partners, and waste disposal impact. Through a strategic communications platform, the campaign would raise awareness among consumers about the ‘cradle to grave’ environmental impacts of the products they buy. It would mobilize consumers to make specific demands of corporations, such as providing transparency about carbon emissions and reducing the carbon-intensity of their manufacturing, distribution and disposal practices. In addition to environmental organizations, the campaign would leverage the organizing capacity of student and corporate responsibility groups, which have a successful track record in raising the visibility of global concerns, and of advocacy groups experienced in watchdogging powerful transnational corporations.
Many in the climate advocacy community seeking to influence corporate action have called attention to the ‘double bottom line’ of industry efforts that simultaneously reduce costs and mitigate carbon emissions. A crucial challenge of the campaign would be to effectively complement, rather than undercut, the progress made by these efforts. It would also be important to determine that the selected companies could internalize the costs of improvements in cases where they are not purely ‘win-win’, and to target corporate leaders as a strategy to create industry-wide changes. Another challenge would be to identify corporations that have consumer bases with the most potential to be effectively mobilized.
A good example is Apple, a high-profile and highly profitable company whose products appeal to young, trend-conscious consumers – a demographic likely to take an interest in eco-friendly goods and to express concern about global warming. Apple pays some lip service to environmental responsibility, yet Climate Counts, a non-profit organization that ranks corporations on their efforts to mitigate climate change, places Apple at the bottom of a list of the 12 largest electronics companies. Another early strategy would be to tap into the growing concern about the contaminated children’s toys that are frequently imported from China by targeting companies in this industry, which has an exceptionally poor record on climate issues. The campaign would aim to convince consumers that not only do the toy industry’s toxic manufacturing practices pose an immediate risk to the health and safety of their children, they also lead to climate impacts that threaten their children’s long-term well-being.
While necessary, voluntary action on the part of corporations and consumers is not alone sufficient to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. The climate crisis also urgently demands government intervention, particularly in the United States, where it is long overdue. However, the industry most directly responsible for carbon emissions – the fossil fuel-based energy sector – has spent tens of millions of dollars on marketing campaigns to block pending climate and energy legislation. Over the next year I would also spend $2 million on a communications platform designed to expose disinformation circulated by the fossil fuel sector that aims to keep the public and policymakers from supporting necessary action on global warming. For example, the ‘clean coal’ campaign is the ultimate in disingenuous ‘greenwashing’ designed to undermine meaningful climate policy. The industry has also made use of a strategy called ‘astroturfing’ – manufacturing the appearance of a grassroots constituency that opposes government action on climate issues. Most recently, opponents to climate legislation have launched a public relations operation designed to resemble pro-environment campaigns while shamelessly proclaiming that ‘CO2 is green’.
The success of this latter campaign would depend on the passage of federal legislation that would regulate the fossil fuel-based energy sector, and in turn allow the United States to more credibly participate in critical international climate negotiations. The success of the corporate accountability campaign would be measured by the concrete steps taken by the targeted companies and industries to mitigate their climate impacts. More broadly, as both campaigns centre on educating and engaging the public, success would be measured by evidence of mounting pressure on corporate and political leaders to facilitate an equitable transformation to a low-carbon global economy.
Rachael Young is a programme associate at Mertz Gilmore Foundation. Email ryoung@mertzgilmore.org
