While federal leadership on climate change was AWOL for most of this decade, big business represented an opportunity to cut emissions and bring new technologies to the market now. One of those businesses was British Petroleum. My organization, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), worked with BP to test carbon-trading systems and recruited the company to join a coalition supporting climate change legislation. We didn't take any money from them, but these days, just saying you've worked with BP is like saying you've had dinner with Bernie Madoff. By implication, you're scum.
Yet the basic idea that we should cut greenhouse gas emissions -- and do so in a way that has been road-tested in the real world -- still seems to me to be a very good idea.
Now the environmental community is getting slammed for ever being in the same room with BP. Recent stories in The Economist and The Washington Post raised questions about BP's past work with EDF and other environmental groups. But EDF or others aren't pulling their punches, and have been vocal critics of BP's response in the Gulf.
The horror of the BP oil disaster is the scope and impact that it's having on the Gulf coast. Yet Fortune 500 companies, precisely because of their large scope and impact, can also use their leverage for good. EDF, for example, works with Walmart. The retail giant is hardly a darling among Progressives, but it provides unparalleled leverage in the consumer goods supply chain. If Walmart adopts higher environmental standards for product design and packaging, say, then those standards very quickly change operations at hundreds of thousands of factories around the world.
Here's another way to think of it. If I can convince one Walmart buyer to "go green" in his or her purchasing, it has the same impact as convincing the 200 million people who shop at Walmart to do the same thing.
At EDF, we don't help companies comply with environmental laws -- they own that responsibility, and they should be held fully accountable for their actions. And we don't take money from the companies we work with. Instead, we challenge them to create new environmental innovations, to share the results, and to forge progress even where laws and regulations don't yet exist.
Do we need environmental groups to confront big corporations, question their claims and scrutinize their actions? Absolutely. No company should be given a free pass in today's transparent society. But environmental groups must also engage companies, when we can, to apply their corporate clout in service to the environment. And that means that occasionally environmental groups will work with big corporate players. In both these roles -- critic and collaborator -- the environment is our only client.
Gwen Ruta, vice president for Corporate Partnerships at Environmental Defense Fund, spearheads the organization's work with leading multinational companies to develop innovative, business-based solutions to environmental challenges and drive change through the corporate value chain. Her post from EDF's Innovation Exchange blog also appeared on Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.
Photo CC-licensed by Flickr user oooh.oooh.














Your side deserves to be heard
Gwen,
Thanks for cross-posting this piece across so many platforms - your side deserves to be heard, and I hope it gets substantial reach.
Clearly, consumers have a ton of distrust toward big corporations like BP and Walmart, and cynically, they're inclined to assume an organization like EDF is making money off of them. I'm glad you clarified that EDF doesn't take any money from the companies it works with.
Are there circumstances in which you do take money from these companies in some form?
Anyway, it's an interesting debate, and it's unfortunate that various do-gooder organizations have been pulled down by associations with BP.
Elliot Greenberger
http://goodworkpeople.com
BP as environmentalist
I agree that changing behavior at companies such as Walmart can have a huge multiplier effect. Actually, Walmart has done a lot to reduce packaging materials and should be commended for their efforts.
But, BP spent millions promoting itself as the green oil company with organizations such as EDF contributing, perhaps unwittingly, to the greenwashing. Evidence has now surfaced that BP went out of its way to cut corners -- no second blowout preventer, didn't follow established practices for well steel tubing, didn't follow Haliburton's advice on cementing the well, didn't let Schlumberge personnel who were on the rig run tests to ensure the cementing would hold. In fact, a few hours after the Schlumberge personnel left on a regularly scheduled helicopter run, Deepwater Horizon blew up.
Clearly BP wanted to create a green image while in practice it was willing to take any available shortcut irrespective of the potential for loss of life and environmental damage. The short cuts caught up with BP and BP's naive environmental friends.
Environmental organizations do need to take advantage of the multiplier effects that can happen when companies go green. But organizations like the EDF need to scratch a company's green surface a little deeper or they just provide more green cover to the polluters.
Keep You Friends Close But Keep Your Enemies Closer
BP has done a wonderful job with this old adage and naive environmentalists, green gurus, sustainability consultants, green media and green event producers have totally taken the bait. Most have made quite a bit of money in the process while in the grand scheme have made absolutely no progress for the environment, energy policy and climate change. Their credibility gets smaller while their wallets get fatter.
I don't think it is right for
I don't think it is right for you to say "Now the environmental community is getting slammed for ever being in the same room with BP".
It would be more correct to say a certain number of environmental organisation that took money from BP are being slammed by the wider environmental community.
I don't have an anti-business agenda but I think some environmental orgs are naïve as to what scale of change and impact they can make by working on company specific projects.
Sure the money is great but are they operating at the right scale or in the right context to affect the change they want to see among businesses?
Corporations and Conservation
I agree-- enviro groups can't ignore big corporations. But I thought that EDF did receive corporate donations (you write: "And we don't take money from the companies we work with.")
What would be your take, then, on accepting corporate donations, and how that can "greenwash" a company even though their practices or products may be damaging?
My take is here: http://commonsearth.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/buying-conservation/
Basically, I don't think there can be a total hands-off approach to accepting corporate donations, but it also puts some of the burden on consumers and donors. But wouldn't the money do more good in a nonprofit's hands?
Madoff and Amway
If you think Madoff ran a huge scam, Amway has ripped off millions of people for several decades, to the tune of 10s of billions of dollars.
Read about it on this website: http://thenetprofitgroup.yolasite.com and forward the information to everyone you know, so they don't get scammed.
Amway is a scam, and here's why: Amway pays out as little money as they can get away with, so they support the higher level IBOs ripping off their downline via the tool scam.
As a result, about 99% of IBOs operate at a net loss, while the top 1% make several TIMES more from their Amway tool scam than from the Amway products. This was made illegal in the UK in 2008, but our FTC is unable to pull their heads out of their butts to stop it here.