SocraticGadfly: Where’s the skepticism on corporate “green” claims?

June 06, 2007

Where’s the skepticism on corporate “green” claims?

The alleged “green” vision of more and more business, exemplified by things such as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts agreeing not to build a bunch of previously-planned coal-fired power plants when it agreed to take over Texas electric utility TXU and getting Environmental Defense to broker the deal sounded great, right?

Maybe, like 15 years ago, some of this really is too good to be true and needs the same degree of skepticism business claims about “going green” got back then.

Here's a few other reasons big businesses might want to look green, whether they truly are or not.
Defeat. Some companies did not embrace green principles on their own - they were forced to do so after being successfully targeted by aggressive environmental campaigns. Home Depot abandoned the sale of lumber harvested in old-growth forests several years ago after being pummeled by groups such as Rainforest Action Network. … Dell started taking computer recycling seriously only after it was pressed to do so by groups such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. …

Diversion. It is apparent that Wal-Mart is using its newfound green consciousness as a means of diverting public attention away from its dismal record in other areas, especially the treatment of workers. In doing so, it hopes to peel environmentalists away from the broad anti-Wal-Mart movement. BP's emphasis on the environment was no doubt made more urgent by the need to repair an image damaged by allegations that a 2005 refinery fire in Texas that killed 15 people was the fault of management. …

Opportunism. There is so much hype these days about protecting the environment that many companies are going green simply to earn more green. There are some market moves, such as Toyota's push on hybrids, that also appear to have some environmental legitimacy. Yet there are also instances of sheer opportunism, such as the effort by Nuclear Energy Institute to depict nukes as an environmentally desirable alternative to fossil fuels. Not to mention surreal cases such as the decision by Britain's BAE Systems to develop environmentally friendly munitions, including low-toxin rockets and lead-free bullets.

I'll admit that I initially bit on the KKR/TXU deal. But, after further reading, including from Jim Jubak, one of MSN's top stock prognosticators, I realized KKR knew that fewer new power plants meant tighter electric supplies, which meant higher electric costs, which meant paying off the TXU purchase more quickly.

Bottom line: Environmentalist claims are going to be, in some way, shape or form, part of corporate marketing. Don't give away a cheap warm fuzzy.

No comments: