Strategic CSR - BP

The article in the url below presents BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in a new light:

"The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a dozen years ago was a human and environmental tragedy. It killed 11 people, dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf, and cost BP Plc more than $65 billion in cleanup costs and damage payments. But had all that oil instead been sold and used, it would have been even deadlier and more devastating to the environment."

The author is actually quoting a tweet on this topic that went viral soon after it was posted:

 

Apparently, the argument is not only compelling, but relatively straightforward:

"The spill caused an estimated 200 million gallons of oil to flow into the Gulf of Mexico. Burning as many gallons of oil and diesel in combustion engines would have emitted over 1.4 million tons of CO₂, not even counting, for example, emissions from refining and transporting the oil. Translated into average lives lost due to the resulting climate change implies about 325 deaths over the course of the century, linked to higher temperatures alone. That doesn't include deaths from the fine particulate matter generated by burning that fuel, which could amount to another 350 premature deaths in a year."

Although it seems unnecessary and unrelated to the point he was trying to make, the original author was forced to add a qualification later as the tweet spread:

"Twitter being Twitter, the responses necessitated a follow-up from David: 'My point isn't that we should spill crude oil.' We shouldn't. There are plenty of other environmental costs not captured by the 11 deaths and $65 billion. The devastating impact on wildlife can only be partially reflected in any monetary damage number. Some of the oil spilled burned uncontrollably, again releasing CO₂. Oil that's not burned but eventually evaporates also causes plenty of environmental harm."

Needless to say:

"Alas, there is a big difference between a statistical calculation based on global damage estimates and being able to put faces and names to deaths, as to those on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform. Eleven deaths are a tragedy, while 325 statistically estimated ones are just that, a statistic."

Nevertheless, the ability to calculate a direct connection between environmental harm and human lives lost is becoming more developed and accurate:

"Thanks to rapid advances in the new field of attribution science, climate-related deaths and other damages can now be linked more directly to tons of CO₂ emitted. Indeed, an increasing number of lawsuits are closing in on establishing a proximate cause via climate damages, but no oil company so far has been forced to pay damages linked to the burning of its products sold to customers."

The author then discusses the contextual nature of our assessment of harm/damage, and the difference between direct and indirect attribution of blame:

"[Cary Coglianese, a professor of law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania] likens the difference between climate change and the BP oil spill to that between the Covid-19 pandemic and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: 'September 11th killed around 3,000 people,' he says. 'We had about that many Covid deaths in the U.S. yesterday alone.' More than 900,000 Americans died from Covid over the past two years, well over 5.5 million worldwide, and those are just the directly attributed deaths. 'We seem to be getting numb to this daily catastrophe,' adds Coglianese."

But, the ultimate point of the article (and the original tweet that stimulated it) is a more immediate understanding of the level of harm that is being committed by what we currently term 'normal behavior:'

"We must not, of course, get numb to either thousands of Covid deaths a day, or to the hundreds of deaths conservatively linked to a BP-spill-size amount of oil that is burned as intended. The links from selling, to burning fossil fuels, to the damages immediately attributable to the resulting emissions, are all too clear. It's high time our laws and courts catch up with that reality."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Daily Climate Damage Should Feel More Like A Disaster

By Gernot Wagner

February 11, 2022

Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-11/daily-climate-damage-should-feel-more-like-a-disaster

 

Strategic CSR - Death penalty

Today's newsletter is a follow-up to one I sent in the Fall about an art project highlighting the final meals of death row inmates (see Strategic CSR – Obituaries):

"Six tacos, six glazed doughnuts and a Cherry Coke: That was the last meal of a man executed in Oklahoma in July 1999. Rendered in cobalt blue glaze on a white china plate the next year, it was the first in Julie Green's decades-long art project, 'The Last Supper,' which documented the final meals of death row prisoners around the country."

The link below is related, in that it is a series of photographs by a photographer who seeks to recreate the last meals (more visceral, I think, than an artistic representation or written description). The title of the series is "No Seconds":

https://henryhargreaves.com/no-seconds

To be clear, the photographer recreates the last meals (these are not photos of actual last meals). He has been described as a "food stylist," so his shoots involve food he manipulates for artistic effect. This approach, of course, introduces the artist's interpretation into the finished piece, which naturally affects the audience's reaction.

Nevertheless, I found that seeing the actual food alters my perception of the 'ritual.' It is more real and immediate, and the implications seem more profound. I have always been struck by the stark contrast between the apparent humanity of offering someone who is condemned the dignity of a final meal request and the barbarity of the actual act of execution. The photographs seem to make this contrast more tangible.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Strategic CSR - EVs in 2022

The article in the url below is interesting simply because it reflects the level of innovation currently going on in the automobile industry and, of course, how much EVs have moved the market in a relatively short period of time:

"This year, the U.S. market is about to see its options for electric vehicles more than double. Thirty entirely new models are poised to hit the streets, according to researcher IHS Markit, mostly created by luxury brands such as Cadillac, Lincoln, and Polestar. And unlike most of the EV standard-bearers to date, the next generation will arrive in the size Americans tend to like: extra large."

 

Apparently, the new models "include at least 14 SUVs, a van, and four pickups," the most notable of which is "a battery-powered version of Ford's F-150, the country's bestselling vehicle for decades." Given the expanded range of options and increasing comfort that consumers seem to have with the growing range of batteries, sales are expected to increase in proportion. The only constraint, it seems, is going to be the ability of the global supply chain to deliver these vehicles to market:

 

"IHS estimates that 1 in 20 American buyers this year will pick a fully electric vehicle—almost 1 million machines—if the supplies hold out. 'It's going to be a matter of what can be built,' says analyst Michael Fiske, 'not what can be sold.'"

 

The chart accompanying the article illustrates those known models due to come to market, along with the driving range on a full battery:

 

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

America's Electriv Vehilce Selection is About to Get a Lot Wider

By Kyle Stock and Dorothy Gambrell

January 15, 2022

Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-12/america-s-electric-vehicle-market-just-keeps-growing-in-2022

 

Strategic CSR - Collegiality

The article in the url below was one of the best stories that I read over the break:

"At 64, Alfredo Lupi, a janitor at a factory in Graffignana, an industrial town southeast of Milan, was less than three years away from his retirement, a threshold that was at once incredibly close but impossibly far. A cognitive impairment that he had suffered from almost since birth was making his job more difficult by the day. The condition was too debilitating for him to work without discomfort, but quitting would have been hard to afford without a pension. That's where his co-workers came in."

Of course, the collegiality among employees was moving:

"Technically, his colleagues gave him … vacation days. They had transferred some of their own allotment — some gave more days, some gave less, but all gave something. That allowed him to stop working, but meant he could remain on the books at the Senna Inox factory and collect a salary until he reached the retirement age of 67."

Apparently, this idea of donating vacation days is a 'thing' in Italy:

"In recent years, the story of a mother who was given the equivalent of three years to take care of her disabled son, as well as tales of time-off donated to hospital workers who have young children and no time to spend with them, have made headlines in Italy. But Mr. Lupi's case was unusual because all 50 of his colleagues pitched in, collecting 20 months worth of working days."

But, the reaction of the employer (Senna Inox), a family-run firm, to the situation was also inspiring because the employees had not donated sufficient time to cover all of the days before his official retirement:

"Still, for all of their generosity, the employees hadn't collected enough time, but Senna Inox rounded things off by agreeing to pay him for the remaining year he would need to reach retirement age."

Clearly, the company understands the value of its employees as its most important stakeholder:

"'You might see it as a big present, but we see it as an investment in solidarity,' said Pietro Senna, one of the four brothers who run the factory founded by their grandfather in 1950. 'We are not depriving ourselves of anything, quite the opposite.'"

As a result:

"Mr. Senna said that the vast majority of their employees at the factory, which designs and produces equipment for the pharmaceutical and food production industry, work there for their entire careers."

Have a good weekend.

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

A Janitor Was Struggling, So His Colleagues Donated Toward an Early Retirement

By Gaia Pianigiani

December 27, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A6

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/25/world/europe/alfredo-lupi-janitor-italy.html

 

Strategic CSR - Labels

The article in the url below summarizes a bill that has been introduced in the California Legislature aiming to restrict use of the commonly-used recyclable logo:

The bill is designed to solve a problem that the logo's critics describe as false advertising:

"The triangular 'chasing arrows' recycling symbol is everywhere: On disposable cups. On shower curtains. On children's toys. What a lot of shoppers might not know is that any product can display the sign, even if it isn't recyclable. It's false advertising, critics say, and as a result, countless tons of non-recyclable garbage are thrown in the recycling bin each year, choking the recycling system."

Although it might seem obvious, the California bill is designed to prevent companies from using the logo in a misleading way. What is surprising is that California is the first state in the U.S. to try and do this explicitly:

"A bill passed by the state's assembly would ban companies from using the arrows symbol unless they can prove the material is in fact recycled in most California communities, and is used to make new products."

Although this piece of legislation is aimed at the logo, it is really part of a much wider effort to address the woefully poor record of recycling that we have:

"Though materials like paper or metals are widely recycled, less than 10 percent of plastic consumed in the United States is recycled, according to the most recent estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency. Instead, most plastic is incinerated or dumped in landfills, with the exception of some types of resins, like the kind used for bottled water or soda."

An important part of this broader campaign is a multi-state effort to try and constrain companies' willingness to greenwash:

"This summer, Maine and Oregon passed laws overhauling their states' recycling systems by requiring corporations to pay for the cost of recycling their packaging. In Oregon, the law included plans to establish a task force that would evaluate 'misleading or confusing claims' related to recycling. Legislation is pending in New York that would, among other things, ban products from displaying misleading claims. In the past year, a number of environmental organizations have filed lawsuits seeking to combat misleading claims of recyclability by major corporations."

Importantly, the recycling industry is fully on board with the California legislation, for obvious operational reasons:

"Recycling companies say the move will help them cut down on the non-recyclable trash thrown in recycling bins that needs to be transported, sorted and sent to the landfill. Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Republic Services, one of the country's largest waste and recycling companies, said in an interview that more than a fifth of the material his company processes nationwide is non-recyclable garbage. That means that even on its best day, Republic is running at only 80 percent efficiency, processing materials it shouldn't be processing, he said."

And, in case you are wondering, the article identifies the most common forms of unrecyclable trash that people try and recycle:

"Some of the most common forms of non-recyclable trash marring operations at Republic's 70 facilities across the United States, which processes six million tons of curbside recycling a year: snack pouches, plastic film, grocery bags and packing material. Plastic bags, in particular, can't be recycled in most curbside recycling programs and notoriously gum up recycling machines."

Of course, those companies that produce packaging are less enthusiastic, responding with an extremely convoluted argument:

"The plastics and packaging industry has opposed the bill, saying it would create more confusion for consumers, not less. An industry memo circulated among California lawmakers urges them to oppose the bill unless it is amended, arguing it 'would create a new definition of recyclability with unworkable criteria for complex products and single use packaging.' The letter was signed by industry heavyweights like the American Chemistry Council, the Plastics Industry Association and Ameripen, a packaging industry group. California should wait for Washington to come up with nationwide labeling standards, the groups said."

The opposition's clinching argument? That products that are not recyclable should not be identified as such because then we would not try and recycle them, even though they are not recyclable and actually increase the costs of recycling those materials that are recyclable:

"The Plastics Industry Association, which represents plastic manufacturers, warned that the bill would determine a slew of products to be unrecyclable and therefore would be landfilled. (Supporters of the bill point out those products are landfilled anyway, despite displaying the recycling symbol.)"

Hmmmmm, cunning.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Bill Says Recyclable Logo Should Mean Something

By Hiroko Tabuchi and Winston Choi-Schagrin

September 10, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

A17

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/08/climate/recycling-california.html

Strategic CSR - Fossil fuels

The article in the url below highlights the massive amount of money that is still being used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry (see also Strategic CSR – Energy subsidies and Strategic CSR – Free markets). Although the total amount dropped in 2020, that was mostly due to a significant drop in demand (due to the pandemic), rather than any enlightened reevaluation of the extent to which governments should be supporting this economic activity to the extent that it is. Cumulatively, the annual subsidies add up to a lot of money:

"In the five years from 2015 to 2019, G-20 governments provided $3.3 trillion of direct support to coal, oil and gas, and fossil fuel-fired power generation. That number has been pretty stubborn over the years, falling from a high of $706 billion in 2015 to a low of $636 billion in 2019 — a change of only about 10%."

While the opportunity costs of such investments are massive (both avoiding alternative investments, but also causing greater pollution and associated health issues), the money might be largely wasted if it is invested in assets that, ultimately, need to be stranded:

"Support at the business level, however, could be even more significant for the long-term prospects of decarbonization. Government funding capacity may not be strictly limited, but it's also not infinite, and funds devoted to supporting an incumbent fossil fuel industry are by definition not able to fund energy transition. Just as importantly, government support has the potential to lock in assets — and the behaviors that go with them — for decades. Those include assets and behaviors related not just to the consumption of fossil fuels, but also to the production and distribution of same, not to mention the politics that go along with them. Government action also creates future unfunded liabilities in the form of potential bills for clean-up and environmental mediation. Finally, governments may be creating future stranded assets, projects that for either policy or economic reasons could soon be permanently out of the money."

These ongoing subsidies are particularly frustrating as the need to shift to more sustainable energies is urgent, yet the longer we wait and the more money we pump into the extraction industries, the longer and harder it is going to be for us to reach true net zero:

"If we want to achieve a net-zero energy system by mid-century, companies and governments will need to invest anywhere from $92 trillion to $173 trillion in the next three decades, according to BNEF's latest New Energy Outlook. Doing so will be difficult, but not impossible. Every dollar supporting any path other than zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, however, makes net zero all the more difficult in the meantime."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

The World's Biggest Governments Are Still Propping Up Fossil Fuels

By Nathaniel Bullard

July 22, 2021

Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-22/fossil-fuels-still-get-plenty-of-government-support

 

Strategic CSR - Google

At various points, I have seen the claim that Google should be declared a public utility (and regulated as such), but never understood the arguments in detail. The article in the url below by the Republican Attorney General of Ohio does this effectively by explaining legal action that he had recently taken:

"As Ohio's attorney general, I went to court last month asking for a judicial declaration that Google has evolved into such an entity: a public utility of internet search."

The attorney general first makes his point, quite convincingly I think, that Google is a monopoly:

"Google is ubiquitous. More web traffic goes to Google and YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, than the other top 50 websites combined. And it's not just internet traffic: Google dominates internet search, cornering nearly 90 percent of the U.S. search market, and even more globally. Bing, the runner-up in internet search, claims a mere 6 percent of the U.S. market and 2 percent globally."

He then explains what it would mean if the courts decided in favor of his case, and suggests it would be a lot less traumatic for the company than the alternative of antitrust action that is currently being considered in Washington:

"As a common-law public utility, Google would then have a legal duty to act with consideration of the public interest, to provide equal access to all users and all information providers and to act without unreasonable bias against information providers, particularly Google's competitors in other business lines. That's it. As legal touches go, it's a lot lighter than what antitrust law would demand."

Then, he details the consequences of the decision for the public at large:

"The subtle common-carrier changes for users will be positive, such as showing you the results you requested instead of being steered to Google products. My lawsuit alleges that Google prioritizes its own products and platforms in search results. … As a public utility, Google search would have to give others a better shot. Those searching would get results that are not skewed to Google, and the marketplace would be a bit more competitive."

And, finally, he rebuts some of the more common objections he sees made to defend the company. For example:

"Critics of Ohio's lawsuit abound, of course. To knock down a few straw men: Ohio's action is not chilling Google's right to free speech. To the contrary, Google will remain free to say anything it pleases. … Critics also say that this creates a dormant commerce clause problem — that one state among 50 is using its law in a manner that burdens interstate commerce, a violation of sovereignty and federalism. But Google can geo-fence Ohio (and the other states that will most likely follow Ohio's lead) if it chooses. The truth of the matter is that foreign governments already are regulating cyberspaces around the world, and with a far heavier hand."

Ultimately, however, his argument relies on the point that Google's dominance undermines the competitive market. That is, whether Google is currently abusing its position is beside the point for two reasons: first, the company might be doing so in a way that is currently unobservable to many and, second, left unchecked, it could do so at some point in the future. The author provides an anecdote, taken from U.S. history, which helped motivate the original antitrust legislation by Congress:

"The duty for a public utility to operate in the public interest dates back to English common law, when key economic players such as ferry operators had to fulfill certain obligations to the public. During the Gilded Age, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt controlled a bridge that was key to getting to New York City by train. In the late 1860s, he closed the bridge to rivals, effectively shutting the rest of the country out of its largest port, and the city off from food supplies from the west. As the competing railroads' stock crashed, he quickly bought up a controlling position. As a result, Vanderbilt used his control of a chokepoint to help establish a monopoly. To curb such predations, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 and subsequently began codifying common-carrier and public-utility law."

His conclusion is that, if Google's current market position is not addressed, it is society that will suffer:

"The preface to Google's parent company's code of conduct says, 'Do the right thing — follow the law, act honorably and treat co-workers with courtesy, support and respect.' Google could do that by acknowledging what is obvious: It's so dominant that the rules of private companies no longer apply to it."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (5e)

© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Let's Make Google a Public Good

By Dave Yost

July 11, 2021

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

SR2

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/opinion/google-utility-antitrust-technology.html