This is the first piece of a series of publications of professional debates, launched by the CEU Debate Society and The CEU Weekly. The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect the writers’ personal opinions but are rather roles taken up in the context of a debate.Proposition - Alexandru Moise (POLS ‘14)
At first it might seem strange to have this debate at all. After all, what we seem to have here are two actors with different interests. Environmentalists want to reduce pollution, decrease waste and invest in green energy. Corporations are only interested in profit and this can never be achieved in an environmentally-friendly way. But is it really this simple?
It rarely is. The fact of the matter is that climate change is a serious problem, one we cannot solve without engaging with the ‘prime polluters’: corporations. The problem is that they have not responded at all to the current confrontational manner in which they are engaged. Fines don't come close to their profits and protests in their mild form do not have much impact and in their extreme form discredit environmentalists. Moreover, attempts to raise awareness in consumers are ineffective if consumers do not have information about the company whose products or services they are purchasing.
The problem runs even deeper on the side of companies, but not for the reasons you might think. The fact of the matter is that companies are not out to destroy the environment. Rather, because of their short-term incentives of maintaining profitability and market position, they are unable to invest in long-term efficiency. Because consumers do not have adequate information, they cannot reward companies who are environmentally friendly. The result is that even if companies desired to be green, the way in which the incentives are set up prohibits them from doing so.
The obvious solution then is to change these incentives through cooperation between environmentalists and corporations. What environmentalists need to do is set up a system by which they would endorse companies that agree to a set of environmentally-friendly measures such as reducing waste, investing in safety standards (British Petroleum could sure use it!), or green technologies. We see this type of mechanism in action with the Fair Trade initiative. Only in this plan environmentalists would endorse entire green companies rather than specific products. This will not allow companies to just dish out "green" products but incentivize them to rethink their approach to profit!
Why would they do this? We have already seen that people are willing to pay more or purchase from a particular firm if it conforms to their moral code and if they have the necessary information, as in the case of hybrid cars or Fair Trade. Knowing that consumers will reward them will completely change the incentives for companies, allowing and actively encouraging them to reform their practices. What we'll be doing is making "profitability" itself green. Moreover, this will also incentive companies to develop a positive, green image. We already see that corporations are incentivized by this as they spend enormous amounts of money through corporate social responsibility.
Now, will this make every single company green and completely solve all our problems? Obviously not, but it will make the kind of profound impact that is out of reach with the current tactics employed by environmentalist movements.
Opposition - Zsófia Murányi (POLS ‘14)
While the idea itself is laudable, it is also deeply problematic in a number of ways.
First, the success of any such cooperation hinges on consumer awareness, and second, there are dangers for any movement advocating for change that are inherent in the nature of a consumerist society. Co-optation can do more harm than good, and I will argue that it is best if environmentalists don't go down that route.
The basis of the suggestion is to increase corporations' need for a good reputation – reputation that only environmentalists can give them. However, this only works if consumers do indeed place great value on environmental friendliness and if they know what this actually means. In many countries, including Emerging Europe, most consumers are still unaware of or unmoved by the importance of waste reduction, environmentally friendly production standards or sustainability, so very few will care about the “good” companies while there are others out there selling cheaper products.
If, on the other hand, consumer awareness is higher (and perhaps it is not overly optimistic to suggest that current trends point in this direction), then this idea, really little more than greenwashing, is a wasted opportunity. If people are willing to listen, environmentalists should not be afraid to advocate for fundamental change instead.
Let's take an example I encountered recently – a canned energy drink which emphasized on its packaging the importance of binning the can into the appropriate selective waste basket. The product was meant to assure everyone that they would, by this simple action, do right by the environment and could therefore feel good about themselves. This is where I say: not enough! Clearly the most environmentally friendly option would be if the product did not exist at all!
I can already hear the outrage by energy drink enthusiasts but the point I am making is this: we are already being sold the idea that saving the environment while maintaining our current habits of consumption is possible. This complacency risks doing too little too late. Environmentalists in our part of the world should continue speaking out and advocating for fundamental change in people's minds.
However, the message that the root of the problem is overconsumption itself is something corporations don't want to hear. No other incentives could possibly offset this, as it is fundamentally antithetical to the logic of profit. If environmentalists were to cooperate with corporations, their message would inevitably be tamed, defanged. Consumer capitalism has a way of co-opting and corrupting social movements – something we can see happening with liberal feminism, for instance. A sports clothing brand will preach female empowerment in its adverts to sell more running shoes – all while abusing female workers with cattle prods in its sweatshops.
Corporations' voices are too strong, too powerful – if environmentalists join them, they will be drowned out. The current state of affairs may seem discouraging, but in this case working within the system rather than against it is not the way to go.
Zsófia Murányi and Alexandru Moise, CEU Debate Socieety
Pictures: wesleying.org, Debate Society logo
0 comments:
Post a Comment