Is The Pen Mightier Than the Sword?
Lately, we have been discussing the topic of partnering for sustainability. Specifically, we mentioned how environmental groups are starting to move away from such harsh tactics like those used in the horrifying anti-KitKat campaign run by Greenpeace. Instead, activists are trying harder to work with companies to make their products and practices more sustainable, rather than fighting head-to-head with them.
So which method is more effective: working together, or using extreme and visible activism?
Greenpeace is one group that is still devoting some of its resources to more antagonistic measures. Their latest victim appears to be Head & Shoulders (and Procter & Gamble more generally) in a palm oil controversy. At the beginning of this month, large banners were placed on P&G headquarters in Cincinnati, bashing the Head & Shoulders line for massive deforestation.
But there are other activists who take more drastic measures. Paul Watson is one such person, who left Greenpeace because he felt it wasn’t radical enough. He is now “the brains behind Sea Shepherd,” a group that opposes Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. Watson is in support of sinking whaling vessels and causing property damage to get his message across.
I agree that this radical form of protest is very effective at increasing awareness about environmental problems among the general population. After all, Greenpeace considered its KitKat campaign a success when Nestle agreed to revamp its supply chain to exclude particularly environmentally-harmful suppliers. But if people start getting hurt or property is damaged, like in the case of Sea Shepherd, has activism gone too far?
At the same time, companies lose out on the opportunity to build their credibility by not partnering with environmental groups. And after being made into a villain by the negative publicity, I would expect some animosity to brew between the environmental group and the business. This would not be the most conducive relationship for the sharing of information among parties to solve environmental problems. Then the planet loses out, because relevant stakeholders aren’t working together to come up with the most effective solutions.
In the end, I can see the benefits of partnering and of drastic activism. Joao Talocchi of Greenpeace also mentioned that they “never do this as a first resort,” referring to their recent action against Head & Shoulders. So if a company won’t listen, all you may be able to do is create a shocking internet campaign that brings the whole world on board to your cause. The question will be whether partnering is an option once the heat dies down after a hostile campaign is completed.
Interesting discussion and questions you ask. In the eyes of the activists, I think action almost always speaks louder than words because of their limited resources and voice to get a message through. Its easier to create a viral video or attack a whaling vessel than it is to communicate with the local government and interact with big corporations that likely hind several layers of lawyers and PR professionals. I still think this is very unfortunate because it in many ways makes the activist the bully or ‘criminal’, and hence decreases the validity of the their actions. You mention that they say this is always the last resort, but how many steps have you taken before you publicly attack a company?
I believe professional journalism has a way higher validity than a activist made banner hanging over a company’s HQ. Engaging in ‘war’ with a corporation is in a best case scenario likely to initiate a short-term change by the organization, whereas a partnership or ‘green-consulting’ can develop long-term sustainable relationships.
Hi Jessica,
I think you have some interesting points here. The way you presented to the two types of relationships companies can have with environmental activities really got me thinking. In my opinion it’s almost like a love-hate relationship; either you benefit greatly from the collaboration or become enemies with each other. So, where should it start? Raising awareness first and become enemies, or partnering up first but with less social impact and awareness? I think it is really hard to transform a relationship from these two polar ends – but my take is to first raise awareness through social media but avoid being overly aggressive. Then, propose for partnership. If this is the case, the company will be much more likely to react to the situation since the situation wouldn’t seem so out-of-hand when there is guidance from your critic.
Jennifer