Posted on 17-7-2002

From Rio to Johannesburg

From March 18-20, 2002, forty progressive activists assembled in Girona,
Spain for a strategy session entitled: Rio+10 and Beyond: Strategies
Against the Greenwash of Corporate Globalisation

The original Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was a significant
victory for corporations. It was the first major international conference
on environment and development where business successfully mobilised to
engineer certain outcomes. Although governments made some positive
commitments, corporations and their lobby groups succeeded in countering
many demands that conflicted with the interests of business, including
dismissing any notion of binding regulation of transnational corporations
and substituting their own 'voluntary' agenda.

The decade since Rio has been marked by increasing corporate influence over
the international social and environmental debate. Whereas previously
corporations had mainly worked through national governments, at Rio lobby
groups - notably the Business Council for Sustainable Development - emerged
as an international force in their own right. Since then, corporations have
been legitimised as 'stakeholders' whose inputs must be reflected in all
major social and environmental treaties. As their sheer size and power
grows, so too does their ability to engineer political outcomes to suit
their interests. Government complacency, along with the lack of effective,
empowered and democratically accountable global institutions, has allowed
corporations the political space to manoeuvre themselves into
decision-making positions.

The last decade has also been a period of intense volatility and disruption
as the corporate-led globalisation agenda has gained momentum. Corporations
and lobby groups, aided by neo-liberal governments, have pushed vigorously
for increasing deregulation, marketisation and privatisation of all sectors
of economic activity and livelihood. Through their dominance of global
institutions and decision-making processes, they have made enormous gains
for the corporate-led globalisation agenda while simultaneously undermining
the possibility of solving problems democratically.
The corporate greenwash of globalisation

As a result of public pressure, some corporations have made changes in the
direction of social and environmental sustainability. They are now more
likely to admit that they have an impact on communities and the environment
and some positive steps have been taken to remedy this. There are, however,
limits to such change. Companies are eager to point to their 'best
practices' as examples of corporate environmentalism and social conscience.
However, core business practices in major sectors continue to be wholly
unsustainable, and the deeper changes are not being made.

As a result, much of what may be perceived as corporate environmentalism is
merely greenwash - an attempt to achieve the appearance of social and
environmental good without corresponding substance. Such greenwash is being
used skilfully to manipulate public perceptions of corporations and diffuse
public pressure to impose binding regulations. Through branding, corporate
philanthropy, high-profile partnerships with NGOs and governments, and
isolated but highly publicised 'best practice' projects, corporations are
making every effort to improve their image. All in order to avoid making
the necessary changes to their core business practices demanded of them by
civil society. By creating a benign public image and dominating
international fora, corporations have exercised a virtual veto power over
many initiatives seeking to impose obligations on them or force them to
comply with basic social and environmental standards. If change has to
happen, they want it at their pace and in their chosen direction.
Engineering of Consent

Corporate engagement on environmental and social issues, particularly in
the run-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), is much
more than just an image exercise - it can be better characterised as 'deep
greenwash' or 'engineering of consent'. Corporations are using more and
more sophisticated strategies to influence political outcomes and debates.
Aided and abetted by the public relations industry, they are moving from
defending their own battered reputations to promoting corporate
globalisation itself against the pressure for systemic social change.

Recognising their own legitimacy crisis as powerful profit-making entities,
corporations are increasingly looking to the NGO sector for much-needed
credibility. Using their vast financial power and charm offensives, many
'partnerships' have emerged between high-profile NGOs and corporations.
Elsewhere, corporations have sought to 'dialogue' with NGOs in an attempt
to be seen to be listening to critics - while benefiting from the resulting
image boost. These 'dialogues' and 'partnerships' can also be sophisticated
tools for co-optation of NGO critics. For example, some of the political
divisions between NGOs in the run-up to the WSSD can be directly attributed
to deliberate divide-and-rule strategies employed by corporations.
From greenwash to bluewash

As the principal institution for global decision-making on environmental,
social, and human rights issues, the United Nations has been directly
targeted by corporations and lobby groups seeking to gain more direct
political influence and to improve their image. The UN leadership has
unfortunately facilitated this trend through its uncritical embrace of
corporations, as exemplified by the Global Compact - a voluntary agreement
with corporations which can neither be monitored nor enforced. Despite a
complete lack of independent verification of company claims, the Global
Compact is being used by corporations to demonstrate that they are
responsible and therefore do not need to be forced to comply with basic
social and environmental standards. As a result of the Global Compact,
other calls from within the UN system for legally binding regulation of
transnational corporations are being suppressed. Endorsement of the Compact
by some NGOs has legitimised it even further, while undermining the
development of more effective initiatives.
Privatising Sustainable Development

The effects of corporate influence on the UN are clear in the preparatory
process for the Johannesburg summit, which displays a deep neo-liberal
bias. For example, numerous references to the 'Doha Development Agenda' in
the Chairman's papers disguise the fact that the WTO system explicitly
subordinates people and the environment to trade considerations. The
emphasis on so-called 'Type-II' outcomes, such as partnerships between
business and governments or NGOs, effectively privatises the implementation
of the Rio 'commitments' set out by governments 10 years ago, and gives an
ultimate seal-of-approval to corporate lobby groups and their 'best
practice' projects. The bias towards Type-II commitments also reflects the
lack of political will to negotiate effective and legally binding solutions
to the world's most pressing social and environment problems.

Co-opting Corporate Accountablity

In an attempt to pre-empt moves towards binding regulations, corporations
are skilfully engineering the debate about 'corporate accountability' down
to the narrowest of definitions. High profile voluntary reporting standards
such as the Global Reporting Initiative are being sold as the answer to
civil society demands for corporate accountability. Corporate groups such
as Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD) are actively
redefining the language of corporate regulation to mean corporate-friendly
regulation such as market-based 'solutions' to problems and intellectual
property rights for corporations.

Like other corporate lobby groups such as the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC), and the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD)
initiative, BASD is working to focus the outcomes of the WSSD on
technocratic and voluntary 'solutions'. By engaging in 'dialogues' with
critics, incorporating the language of NGO criticisms into their rhetoric
(such as 'corporate accountability'), publishing glossy reports, and
demonstrating isolated examples of good 'corporate citizenship', they are
succeeding in blurring the lines between business and NGOs, and deflecting
pressure for fundamental change. The disturbing acquiescence and
opportunism of some NGOs in the preparatory process has only contributed to
the problem, by closing off political space for more corporate-critical
positions.

Privatising nature

Specific agreements and initiatives on climate change, biosafety and water
are being hailed as triumphant successes of the Rio process. The reality is
that in almost every sector where a Rio agreement has been reached or is in
negotiation, a deep neo-liberal and corporate bias is apparent. Through the
Rio process, corporations are working to open up nature itself to
commodification and privatisation - air, water, and the genetic building
blocks of life are being turned into tradeable goods.

In the case of the atmosphere, the Kyoto Protocol is littered with
so-called 'market-based solutions' which will not only undermine the
limited environmental integrity of the Protocol itself, but also reinforce
corporate power through the creation of a new market in atmospheric
credits. Biotechnology is being touted as the solution to the world's food
and health problems, and being actively promoted by UN agencies, despite
growing public concern and an absence of stringent testing, labelling and
liability requirements. The water sector is threatened by a sophisticated
effort on the part of TNCs to reframe the debate around water provision
from one of a fundamental human right to an economic good, paving the way
for increasing privatisation of the world's water supply. Everywhere,
corporate interests are being enshrined in law while considerations of
social and environmental welfare are brushed aside with fine words.
Call for democratic control over the economy

Rio + 10 summit offers us all an opportunity to assess and evaluate the
last ten years of corporate-led globalisation, and to change course.

It is evident that in the increasingly deregulated environs of the global
economy, internationally binding and legally enforceable regulation of
corporations is imperative as a first step to asserting democratic control
over the economy.

The pace and direction of change should not be left to corporations to
decide. The obstructive influence of corporations and their lobby groups
must come to an end.

Basic concepts of participatory democracy and community empowerment should
be at the heart of all international decision-making structures and processes.