Thank you, Lloyd. A most cogent and urgent message. We don't need more artificial intelligence. We need more human intelligence, which is in increasingly short supply.
Hasn't it always been PR (from the perspective that it was being "touted" by green activists as to why it was necessary)? Marketing and sales is all about PR—the whole stupid "gluten free/sugar free/cholesterol free/etc." thing on products that don't have any of that present in its ingredient list comes to mind. Companies did that to (no surprise) increase sales based on people's tendencies to skim headlines and make knee-jerk decisions rather than actually engage brain power. Did anyone **actually** think that popcorn had gluten in it? Or that soda isn't fat free? I highly doubt it—and if they did, it's a shame that those people have the same right to vote as do you and I.
I don't see why the multiple roles of corporate affairs, external communications, and sustainability can't be under one umbrella for Unilever, as many corporations have upper management overseeing multiple departments. From a cost cutting perspective alone, having a single department that has employees which devote time to each of those goals just makes sense … less risk of duplicity of responsibility. Besides, it's not like Unilever is going to roll back its success reducing its decarbonization efforts in its products, right?
It shouldn’t be under the same umbrella because it’s a completely different discipline. The first two listed are communications.
Sustainability measures typically include supply chains, resource management, engineering and product development. The communications people just write the press release about the initiatives.
Lloyd, Historically, consumer boycotting hasn't moved the needle. I'm not sure I would even consider it collective action. The strongest, and perhaps ONLY, leverage we have against corporations is the collective threat of withholding labor. As Matt Huber tells his students, "Want to fight climate change? Join a union!"
Corporations have more available financial resources for intermediate funding during labor strikes than do individuals. I think you're overstating the ability of labor in the modern global commerce environment to effect management decisions on that broad of a scale.
A few years ago, Maine enacted an Extended Producer Responsibility law. It will require manufacturers to either make packaging easily recyclable or they'll pay communities for the cost of disposal of unrecyclable packaging. The state is working through the rule making process now. We'll see how it works, but it seems like a good idea. A few other states are enacting similar laws.
Vindaloo, Indeed, the power and wealth of the global fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics interests arrayed against us is staggering. Still, they cannot operate without the willing participation of workers. Points of vulnerability exist all along the production and distribution circuits. Witness the impact of a recent threatened rail strike.
Granted, effective direct action requires far more extensive and militant unionization than exists at present. Also, you are correct in suggesting that global capital is able to play workers off each other in a race to the bottom. That is why, if we are to see a resurgence of labor organizing in the 21stC that can affect climate policy, it will need to be international.
>>"That is why, if we are to see a resurgence of labor organizing in the 21stC that can affect climate policy, it will need to be international."
But that's not going to happen for a number of reasons.
1. Coordination between nations, at the worker level, would be extremely difficult.
2. Currency exchange rates are an impediment to less developed nations weathering prolonged periods of unemployment.
3. Worker rights are less protected in lesser developed nations.
4. Less developed nations' commitment to sustainability measures is far less robust than developed nations'.
5. The lower GDPs of those same nations means working class citizens are less interested in mobilizing against climate for purely fiscal reasons.
I could go on. Long story short, beggars can't be choosers. If a petrol company wants to hire locals for construction and security purposes on a project in a foreign land, the wages paid will be far superior to virtually anything else in the area, and when youth unemployment and poverty is high, those kinds of opportunities are few and far between. Money talks far more than sustainability measures.
The union movement is over, a relic of the 20th century. We simply will not, nor cannot, return to the 1950's and 60's union-led workforce.
Having worked for ten years at various companies in manufacturing, I know that a lot of this move away from sustainability is just companies being honest and not bothering with the greenwashing that they have been putting on display for the past few years.
And yes, the election of Trump has given these folks permission to drop sustainability. I think, as it is with Zuckerberg and Besos, that some of it is just going along with the political winds and avoiding being the target of the incoming administration.
Those that benefit the most from business as usual are always the ones pushing back against environmental responsibility all the while convincing those who lose the most that the cause will cure you and the medicine will kill you.
Liked the comment about getting out of the house! Made it to work by bike even at -13. We've definitely wimped out as a species when it comes to weather - we focus on needing 'protection' all the time instead of adapting. This has huge economic and environmental implications.
On the topic of corporates I'll be putting something together on how sustainability leaders tend to get punted by the same shareholders who trumpet ESG - its an interesting dynamic to say the least!
It would be good to implement the seventh generation principle which is based on making decisions now that will benefit our descendants seven generations from now. Anything else is fatally short-sighted.
My decision to have a steak for my dinner tonight will not, in any possible way, be a drawback for someone seven generations from now.
Likewise, if I opted for a falafel pita, I would not benefit someone seven generations from now.
If I light a fire in the stove to keep warm on a chilly night, it will not hinder someone seven generations into the future, just as foregoing the stove and instead throwing three heavy quilts on the bed will benefit that mythical someone in the future.
Yet all those decisions are, we're told, important to consider because we presumably have a very limited carbon budget left before inevitable catastrophe awaits. I have a life to live NOW, for MYSELF, and it should be enjoyed, should it not? Why should I fret needlessly about something in the far distant future that may or may not ever be realized as we could be wiped out by a global pandemic, asteroid impact, CME eruption that destroys all modern infrastructure running on a circuit board, warfare, or simply some unknown unknown yet to be as well known as these others?
Is life not meant to be enjoyed, or should it simply be endured?
Thank you, Lloyd. A most cogent and urgent message. We don't need more artificial intelligence. We need more human intelligence, which is in increasingly short supply.
>>"So sustainability is now just a PR exercise."
Hasn't it always been PR (from the perspective that it was being "touted" by green activists as to why it was necessary)? Marketing and sales is all about PR—the whole stupid "gluten free/sugar free/cholesterol free/etc." thing on products that don't have any of that present in its ingredient list comes to mind. Companies did that to (no surprise) increase sales based on people's tendencies to skim headlines and make knee-jerk decisions rather than actually engage brain power. Did anyone **actually** think that popcorn had gluten in it? Or that soda isn't fat free? I highly doubt it—and if they did, it's a shame that those people have the same right to vote as do you and I.
I don't see why the multiple roles of corporate affairs, external communications, and sustainability can't be under one umbrella for Unilever, as many corporations have upper management overseeing multiple departments. From a cost cutting perspective alone, having a single department that has employees which devote time to each of those goals just makes sense … less risk of duplicity of responsibility. Besides, it's not like Unilever is going to roll back its success reducing its decarbonization efforts in its products, right?
Glass half full mode: ON.
It shouldn’t be under the same umbrella because it’s a completely different discipline. The first two listed are communications.
Sustainability measures typically include supply chains, resource management, engineering and product development. The communications people just write the press release about the initiatives.
The difference between "greenwash" and "greenlash" was always just one letter ….
Lloyd, Historically, consumer boycotting hasn't moved the needle. I'm not sure I would even consider it collective action. The strongest, and perhaps ONLY, leverage we have against corporations is the collective threat of withholding labor. As Matt Huber tells his students, "Want to fight climate change? Join a union!"
Corporations have more available financial resources for intermediate funding during labor strikes than do individuals. I think you're overstating the ability of labor in the modern global commerce environment to effect management decisions on that broad of a scale.
A few years ago, Maine enacted an Extended Producer Responsibility law. It will require manufacturers to either make packaging easily recyclable or they'll pay communities for the cost of disposal of unrecyclable packaging. The state is working through the rule making process now. We'll see how it works, but it seems like a good idea. A few other states are enacting similar laws.
Vindaloo, Indeed, the power and wealth of the global fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics interests arrayed against us is staggering. Still, they cannot operate without the willing participation of workers. Points of vulnerability exist all along the production and distribution circuits. Witness the impact of a recent threatened rail strike.
Granted, effective direct action requires far more extensive and militant unionization than exists at present. Also, you are correct in suggesting that global capital is able to play workers off each other in a race to the bottom. That is why, if we are to see a resurgence of labor organizing in the 21stC that can affect climate policy, it will need to be international.
>>"That is why, if we are to see a resurgence of labor organizing in the 21stC that can affect climate policy, it will need to be international."
But that's not going to happen for a number of reasons.
1. Coordination between nations, at the worker level, would be extremely difficult.
2. Currency exchange rates are an impediment to less developed nations weathering prolonged periods of unemployment.
3. Worker rights are less protected in lesser developed nations.
4. Less developed nations' commitment to sustainability measures is far less robust than developed nations'.
5. The lower GDPs of those same nations means working class citizens are less interested in mobilizing against climate for purely fiscal reasons.
I could go on. Long story short, beggars can't be choosers. If a petrol company wants to hire locals for construction and security purposes on a project in a foreign land, the wages paid will be far superior to virtually anything else in the area, and when youth unemployment and poverty is high, those kinds of opportunities are few and far between. Money talks far more than sustainability measures.
The union movement is over, a relic of the 20th century. We simply will not, nor cannot, return to the 1950's and 60's union-led workforce.
Having worked for ten years at various companies in manufacturing, I know that a lot of this move away from sustainability is just companies being honest and not bothering with the greenwashing that they have been putting on display for the past few years.
And yes, the election of Trump has given these folks permission to drop sustainability. I think, as it is with Zuckerberg and Besos, that some of it is just going along with the political winds and avoiding being the target of the incoming administration.
Those that benefit the most from business as usual are always the ones pushing back against environmental responsibility all the while convincing those who lose the most that the cause will cure you and the medicine will kill you.
Liked the comment about getting out of the house! Made it to work by bike even at -13. We've definitely wimped out as a species when it comes to weather - we focus on needing 'protection' all the time instead of adapting. This has huge economic and environmental implications.
On the topic of corporates I'll be putting something together on how sustainability leaders tend to get punted by the same shareholders who trumpet ESG - its an interesting dynamic to say the least!
It would be good to implement the seventh generation principle which is based on making decisions now that will benefit our descendants seven generations from now. Anything else is fatally short-sighted.
My decision to have a steak for my dinner tonight will not, in any possible way, be a drawback for someone seven generations from now.
Likewise, if I opted for a falafel pita, I would not benefit someone seven generations from now.
If I light a fire in the stove to keep warm on a chilly night, it will not hinder someone seven generations into the future, just as foregoing the stove and instead throwing three heavy quilts on the bed will benefit that mythical someone in the future.
Yet all those decisions are, we're told, important to consider because we presumably have a very limited carbon budget left before inevitable catastrophe awaits. I have a life to live NOW, for MYSELF, and it should be enjoyed, should it not? Why should I fret needlessly about something in the far distant future that may or may not ever be realized as we could be wiped out by a global pandemic, asteroid impact, CME eruption that destroys all modern infrastructure running on a circuit board, warfare, or simply some unknown unknown yet to be as well known as these others?
Is life not meant to be enjoyed, or should it simply be endured?