Difference between revisions of "UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy: Renewables Greenwash"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Greenwash and Corporate Sustainability)
m (→‎Greenwash and Corporate Sustainability)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
===Greenwash and Corporate Sustainability===
 
===Greenwash and Corporate Sustainability===
  
−
<ref>Climate Change Programme Review: Joint meeting between the UK Power Sector and Green NGO Chief Executives.2005. "[http://www.bcse.org.uk/events/archive2005.shtml UKBCSE events 2005 archive]" Accessed 12/04/09</ref>
 
  
 
The origins of the 'corporate capture of sustainable development' <ref>Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.</ref> can be traced to the late 1980's, when corporations reacted to their portrayal as a-moral and uncaring by environmentalists and saw the opportunity to promote a green image through the notion of 'sustainable economic growth' and corporate social responsibility, usually involving self regulation and domination of the sustainability agenda.<ref>Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.</ref> <ref>Najam, Adil. 1999. 'World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?' pp. 65-77 in Helge Ole Bergesen, et al., eds. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 1999/2000.</ref>. Gramsci describes how corporations absorb their enemies into coalitions he calls 'new historical blocs', formed to deal with a specific issue or public affairs campaign <ref>Germain. R and Kenny, M (1998). 'Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians', Review of International Studies  (1998), 24 : 3-21. Cambridge University Press.</ref>. Similarly Najam notes how the use of sustainability rhetoric has wooed universities, NGO's and governments into various corporate partnerships which helped to promote business as part of the solution, as opposed to the problem <ref> Najam, Adil. 1999. 'World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?' pp. 65-77 in Helge Ole Bergesen, et al., eds. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 1999/2000.</ref>. Sklair also describes how corporate input to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development resulted in the definition of 'sustainable consumption' as addressing 'how the goods and services (including energy) required to meet people's needs can be delivered in a way that reduces the burden on the earth's carrying capacity'<ref>Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.</ref>. The wording leaves 'needs' open to interpretation by commercial interests and advocates sustaining production and consumption levels, while reducing only waste. Others have argued that growth capitalism necessarily involves exploitation of resources, and a sustainable society must therefore minimise economic growth.<ref>Daly, Herman E. and Cobb,  John B. (1994) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community,the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press.</ref>  
 
The origins of the 'corporate capture of sustainable development' <ref>Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.</ref> can be traced to the late 1980's, when corporations reacted to their portrayal as a-moral and uncaring by environmentalists and saw the opportunity to promote a green image through the notion of 'sustainable economic growth' and corporate social responsibility, usually involving self regulation and domination of the sustainability agenda.<ref>Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.</ref> <ref>Najam, Adil. 1999. 'World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?' pp. 65-77 in Helge Ole Bergesen, et al., eds. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 1999/2000.</ref>. Gramsci describes how corporations absorb their enemies into coalitions he calls 'new historical blocs', formed to deal with a specific issue or public affairs campaign <ref>Germain. R and Kenny, M (1998). 'Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians', Review of International Studies  (1998), 24 : 3-21. Cambridge University Press.</ref>. Similarly Najam notes how the use of sustainability rhetoric has wooed universities, NGO's and governments into various corporate partnerships which helped to promote business as part of the solution, as opposed to the problem <ref> Najam, Adil. 1999. 'World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?' pp. 65-77 in Helge Ole Bergesen, et al., eds. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 1999/2000.</ref>. Sklair also describes how corporate input to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development resulted in the definition of 'sustainable consumption' as addressing 'how the goods and services (including energy) required to meet people's needs can be delivered in a way that reduces the burden on the earth's carrying capacity'<ref>Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.</ref>. The wording leaves 'needs' open to interpretation by commercial interests and advocates sustaining production and consumption levels, while reducing only waste. Others have argued that growth capitalism necessarily involves exploitation of resources, and a sustainable society must therefore minimise economic growth.<ref>Daly, Herman E. and Cobb,  John B. (1994) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community,the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press.</ref>  
  
−
Oil and gas companies joined the sustainability bandwagon en masse in the late 1990's after the Exxon Valdez spill and the Brent Spa fiasco created a wave of bad press, and a renewables based image was deemed commercially prudent (BP's Beyond Petroleum campaign was one of the first and most notable of the reformed oil company images) 8. Business/government partnerships on environmental issues were also promoted by Kofi Annan at the 1999 World Economic Forum.  
+
Oil and gas companies joined the sustainability bandwagon en masse in the late 1990's after the [[Exxon Valdez]] spill and the [[Brent Spa]] fiasco created a wave of bad press, and a renewables based image was deemed commercially prudent ([[BP]]'s Beyond Petroleum campaign was one of the first and most notable of the reformed oil company images) <ref>Kolk, A and Levy, D (2001), ‘Winds of change: corporate strategy, climate change and oil multinationals’, European Management Journal, 19(5), 501-509.</ref>. Business/government partnerships on environmental issues were also promoted by Kofi Annan at the 1999 World Economic Forum.  
  
−
The term 'greenwash' has evolved in recent years to describe false or misleading claims to environmentally beneficial behaviours by businesses or governments such as those explored in this study. 9
+
The term 'greenwash' has evolved in recent years to describe false or misleading claims to environmentally beneficial behaviours by businesses or governments such as those explored in this study. <ref>See "[http://www.stopgreenwash.org Greenpeace's greenwash campaign]" Accessed 12/04/09</ref>
  
 
===How Sustainable?===
 
===How Sustainable?===
  
 
UKBCSE members are the eight largest UK energy and transmission companies who dominate the UK renewables market, representing around £3 bn investment in sustainable energy according to the UKBCSE <ref>UKBCSE, "[http://www.bcse.org.uk/ UK BSCE Introduction]", UKBCSE Introduction page. Accessed 12/02/09</ref>. Aswell as members they also list 'strategic partners' from the atmospheric gas and hydrogen industry, oil and gas and large scale wind lobby. Their literature uses sustainability language such as 'strong carbon targets' and 'energy descent' but  in other places alludes to the need to maintain current demand for energy (unsurprising given their membership). The main emphasis of UKBCSE policy (analysed in more detail later) is on creating strong carbon markets, emissions trading and other market based mechanisms. These neo-liberal 'solutions' have been shown to favour large companies and existing technologies, at the expense of small or independent generators and new technology <ref>Toke, David. (2008)'The EU Renewables Directive—What is the fuss about trading?' Energy Policy Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 3001-3008</ref> <ref>Toke, D and Lauber, V, (2007) 'Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental policy: The case of financing renewable energy / Geoforum 38: 677–687</ref>. It is also speculated that such emphasis on lowest short-term cost market solutions can make 'clean coal' and nuclear energy more appealing, as demonstrated in the current case of the UK, while countries who adopt 'command and control' policies tend to promote innovative technologies, independent generation and long term growth in renewable energy provision. Toke compares the UK's freemarket policies with Germany's REFIT command and control policy which has led Germany's large renewable energy sector being dominated by small independent suppliers. The UK is one of the only European countries pushing for a deregulated carbon market, supported by the USA, while most other EU countries favour REFIT type systems <ref>Toke, D and Lauber, V, (2007) 'Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental policy: The case of financing renewable energy / Geoforum 38: 677–687</ref>. Though the main image on their website contains the names of many renewable technologies, UKBCSE literature promotes wind almost exclusively as a carbon reduction strategy, and though it is not made explicit in their literature it is speculated their activities  promote nuclear and 'clean coal'. A brief look at the activities of member companies, related lobby groups and key figures sheds light on these claims.
 
UKBCSE members are the eight largest UK energy and transmission companies who dominate the UK renewables market, representing around £3 bn investment in sustainable energy according to the UKBCSE <ref>UKBCSE, "[http://www.bcse.org.uk/ UK BSCE Introduction]", UKBCSE Introduction page. Accessed 12/02/09</ref>. Aswell as members they also list 'strategic partners' from the atmospheric gas and hydrogen industry, oil and gas and large scale wind lobby. Their literature uses sustainability language such as 'strong carbon targets' and 'energy descent' but  in other places alludes to the need to maintain current demand for energy (unsurprising given their membership). The main emphasis of UKBCSE policy (analysed in more detail later) is on creating strong carbon markets, emissions trading and other market based mechanisms. These neo-liberal 'solutions' have been shown to favour large companies and existing technologies, at the expense of small or independent generators and new technology <ref>Toke, David. (2008)'The EU Renewables Directive—What is the fuss about trading?' Energy Policy Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 3001-3008</ref> <ref>Toke, D and Lauber, V, (2007) 'Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental policy: The case of financing renewable energy / Geoforum 38: 677–687</ref>. It is also speculated that such emphasis on lowest short-term cost market solutions can make 'clean coal' and nuclear energy more appealing, as demonstrated in the current case of the UK, while countries who adopt 'command and control' policies tend to promote innovative technologies, independent generation and long term growth in renewable energy provision. Toke compares the UK's freemarket policies with Germany's REFIT command and control policy which has led Germany's large renewable energy sector being dominated by small independent suppliers. The UK is one of the only European countries pushing for a deregulated carbon market, supported by the USA, while most other EU countries favour REFIT type systems <ref>Toke, D and Lauber, V, (2007) 'Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental policy: The case of financing renewable energy / Geoforum 38: 677–687</ref>. Though the main image on their website contains the names of many renewable technologies, UKBCSE literature promotes wind almost exclusively as a carbon reduction strategy, and though it is not made explicit in their literature it is speculated their activities  promote nuclear and 'clean coal'. A brief look at the activities of member companies, related lobby groups and key figures sheds light on these claims.

Revision as of 12:20, 8 November 2009

Background to formation

The UKBCSE was established in May 2001 and formally launched in Jan 2002 following the Prime Minister's Environment Speech on 6th March 2001 in which he emphasised the business opportunities presented by Kyoto and renewable technologies, and announced plans to invite 'CEOs from key sectors...together with the leaders of NGOs, to work to develop innovative strategies' in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002 [1]. Though depicting themselves as an independent lobby group, the UKBCSE have clearly worked closely with government on policy and initiatives from their conception as their website states,

'the UKBCSE took the lead role for the UK Government in bringing together the UK Energy Sector input to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. At the World Summit, the UKBCSE worked with the UK Government to launch the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)[2].'

The organisation went on to have 'a key role in the development and delivery of the UK Prime Ministers agenda for his G8 and EU Presidencies'[3].. In line with Blair's assertion that 'we have led the way in integrating environmental and economic goals within a liberalised electricity market',[4] the UKBCSE joined with sister organisations in Washington (USBCSE), Frankfurt (European BCSE or e5) and Melbourne (AUBCSE) in using strong sustainability rhetoric to push for emissions trading and other liberal market based solutions to climate change historically favoured by the UK government, and which tend to favour large scale existing technologies such as wind and nuclear, which their members predominantly supply.

Despite claims that they were formed 'at the request of major NGOs' [5] the UKBCSE has no NGO membership or declared connections, and was formed of the largest energy suppliers and distributors in the UK.

Greenwash and Corporate Sustainability

The origins of the 'corporate capture of sustainable development' [6] can be traced to the late 1980's, when corporations reacted to their portrayal as a-moral and uncaring by environmentalists and saw the opportunity to promote a green image through the notion of 'sustainable economic growth' and corporate social responsibility, usually involving self regulation and domination of the sustainability agenda.[7] [8]. Gramsci describes how corporations absorb their enemies into coalitions he calls 'new historical blocs', formed to deal with a specific issue or public affairs campaign [9]. Similarly Najam notes how the use of sustainability rhetoric has wooed universities, NGO's and governments into various corporate partnerships which helped to promote business as part of the solution, as opposed to the problem [10]. Sklair also describes how corporate input to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development resulted in the definition of 'sustainable consumption' as addressing 'how the goods and services (including energy) required to meet people's needs can be delivered in a way that reduces the burden on the earth's carrying capacity'[11]. The wording leaves 'needs' open to interpretation by commercial interests and advocates sustaining production and consumption levels, while reducing only waste. Others have argued that growth capitalism necessarily involves exploitation of resources, and a sustainable society must therefore minimise economic growth.[12]

Oil and gas companies joined the sustainability bandwagon en masse in the late 1990's after the Exxon Valdez spill and the Brent Spa fiasco created a wave of bad press, and a renewables based image was deemed commercially prudent (BP's Beyond Petroleum campaign was one of the first and most notable of the reformed oil company images) [13]. Business/government partnerships on environmental issues were also promoted by Kofi Annan at the 1999 World Economic Forum.

The term 'greenwash' has evolved in recent years to describe false or misleading claims to environmentally beneficial behaviours by businesses or governments such as those explored in this study. [14]

How Sustainable?

UKBCSE members are the eight largest UK energy and transmission companies who dominate the UK renewables market, representing around £3 bn investment in sustainable energy according to the UKBCSE [15]. Aswell as members they also list 'strategic partners' from the atmospheric gas and hydrogen industry, oil and gas and large scale wind lobby. Their literature uses sustainability language such as 'strong carbon targets' and 'energy descent' but in other places alludes to the need to maintain current demand for energy (unsurprising given their membership). The main emphasis of UKBCSE policy (analysed in more detail later) is on creating strong carbon markets, emissions trading and other market based mechanisms. These neo-liberal 'solutions' have been shown to favour large companies and existing technologies, at the expense of small or independent generators and new technology [16] [17]. It is also speculated that such emphasis on lowest short-term cost market solutions can make 'clean coal' and nuclear energy more appealing, as demonstrated in the current case of the UK, while countries who adopt 'command and control' policies tend to promote innovative technologies, independent generation and long term growth in renewable energy provision. Toke compares the UK's freemarket policies with Germany's REFIT command and control policy which has led Germany's large renewable energy sector being dominated by small independent suppliers. The UK is one of the only European countries pushing for a deregulated carbon market, supported by the USA, while most other EU countries favour REFIT type systems [18]. Though the main image on their website contains the names of many renewable technologies, UKBCSE literature promotes wind almost exclusively as a carbon reduction strategy, and though it is not made explicit in their literature it is speculated their activities promote nuclear and 'clean coal'. A brief look at the activities of member companies, related lobby groups and key figures sheds light on these claims.

  1. ↑ Tony Blair, Speech by the British Prime Minister, 06 March 2001 "Environment: the next steps", World Bank Documents page. Accessed 08/11/09
  2. ↑ UKBCSE, "UK BSCE Introduction", UKBCSE Introduction page. Accessed 12/02/09
  3. ↑ UKBCSE, "UK BSCE Introduction", UKBCSE Introduction page. Accessed 12/02/09
  4. ↑ Tony Blair, Speech by the British Prime Minister, 06 March 2001 "Environment: the next steps", World Bank Documents page. Accessed 08/11/09
  5. ↑ UKBCSE, "UK BSCE Introduction", UKBCSE Introduction page. Accessed 12/02/09
  6. ↑ Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.
  7. ↑ Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.
  8. ↑ Najam, Adil. 1999. 'World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?' pp. 65-77 in Helge Ole Bergesen, et al., eds. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 1999/2000.
  9. ↑ Germain. R and Kenny, M (1998). 'Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians', Review of International Studies (1998), 24 : 3-21. Cambridge University Press.
  10. ↑ Najam, Adil. 1999. 'World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?' pp. 65-77 in Helge Ole Bergesen, et al., eds. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 1999/2000.
  11. ↑ Sklair, Leslie (2000) 'The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation' Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 14, Issue 1 Autumn 2000 , pages 67 – 85.
  12. ↑ Daly, Herman E. and Cobb, John B. (1994) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community,the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press.
  13. ↑ Kolk, A and Levy, D (2001), ‘Winds of change: corporate strategy, climate change and oil multinationals’, European Management Journal, 19(5), 501-509.
  14. ↑ See "Greenpeace's greenwash campaign" Accessed 12/04/09
  15. ↑ UKBCSE, "UK BSCE Introduction", UKBCSE Introduction page. Accessed 12/02/09
  16. ↑ Toke, David. (2008)'The EU Renewables Directive—What is the fuss about trading?' Energy Policy Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 3001-3008
  17. ↑ Toke, D and Lauber, V, (2007) 'Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental policy: The case of financing renewable energy / Geoforum 38: 677–687
  18. ↑ Toke, D and Lauber, V, (2007) 'Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental policy: The case of financing renewable energy / Geoforum 38: 677–687
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=UK_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Energy:_Renewables_Greenwash&oldid=100436"