[sustran] Advisory Meeting for Shell Sustainable Energy Initiative
Brian.Williams at unchs.org
Brian.Williams at unchs.org
Sun Aug 31 13:09:13 JST 2003
Dear Friends,
Having recently received some corporate money from
Daimler-Benz AG in Germany (on behalf of my agency, I assure
you) to do a meeting on sustainable transport entitled
"Transport for the 21st Century" at the Habitat II conference
in Istanbul, I feel compelled to comment on Mr. Whitelegg's
comments on corporate "greenwashing" and this Shell
"sustainable energy initiative" generally.
In my view, 95% of "corporate sustainable anything"
initiatives are PR smoke and mirrors operations. I think in
transport, there is one glaring exception (Toyota Motors
Foundation in Japan...see me for data) but by and large, it
is all image-building. In the case of Shell, my independent
sources tell me it is closer to 100% smoke and mirrors, and I
believe them. And I happen to agree 100% with Mr.
Whitelegg's substantive assessment of the problems here with
this particular initiative.
However, having said that, I believe that it is all too
easy to become apalled at the deceit and more difficult to
channel the energy such a controversial meeting engenders and
put it to good use. In the case of Istanbul (as many of you
recall) 500 people (activists, academics, local authorities
etc., etc.) got together for one entire day and gave one of
the senior vice-presidents representing the company a pretty
good tongue-lashing the entire time. I recall at one point,
one person reminded the audience that if it wasn't for
Daimler-Benz's financial contribution, we wouldn't be having
a dialogue on the global problems in transport and somebody
then responded, "If it wasn't for Daimler-Benz, we wouldn't
NEED this dialogue on transport!" Needless to say, they
weren't amused. Of course the meeting was not pure vitriol
and there were some good discussions of a substantive nature,
particularly on the role of technology (Daimler-Benz's
obvious agenda) as well as some other issues.
Did the meeting change their corporate policy? Probably
not. Where they happy they were involved? Yes, as a matter
of fact, they were. I heard later they actually got a great
deal of mileage out of being affiliated (as a private sector
company) with a UN initiative. But what it DID do for many
of us collectively was to greatly expand our contacts with
others working in the sustainable transport arena. And for
that, I genuinely appreciate Daimler-Benz's financial inputs
and strongly doubt the opportunity would have arisen without
them.
I guess my point is that meetings of this sort do
provide opportunities. In particular, for example, this
meeting in Bangkok may:
1) Provide the opportunity to raise the points John made to
the source itself. It may or may not help (probably
wouldn't) but it certainly wouldn't hurt;
2) An opportunity to "know the enemy" as it were;
3) An opportunity to informally network and form strategic
alliances with other who are likely to be in attendance for
work to change the initative itself or for work in other
areas.
4) An opportunity for a free trip to Bangkok to work on
whatever is your own agenda. For those of you involved in
sustainable transport, the City of Bangkok is like a living
laboratory of how not to do things.
In conclusion, I think accepting money from a suspect
private-sector operation doesn't mean you endorse the company
or the initiative. Boycotting events of this sort do send a
message and a valuable one, at times. However, they are also
opportunities missed. In weighing the costs and benefits of
whether or not to participate, let's not forget that no
matter how flawed the forum, it probably would not have
occurred at all unless somebody came up with the money. I am
of the view that there is "value-added" in practically any
opportunity for dialogue and we should seize these
opportunities whenever possible.
John, I do not know if, in fact, you were suggesting
Paul not go. Perhaps you were just alerting him, and all of
us, to the hidden agenda and for that, I am appreciative.
This Shell initiative may be particularly suspect and
onerous, but I would argue that is all the more reason to go.
I agonized and wrestled with this same issue during Habitat
II (taking private money) and (very reluctantly, believe me)
came up with the general conclusions above vis-a-vis events
of this sort. I think for those of you in attendance there,
we didn't go wrong. I therefore felt compelled to give my
two-cents worth on this issue, for what it's worth.
Regards to all,
Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)
Research and Development Division
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
TEL: (254 2) 623-916
FAX: (254 2) 624-265
EMAIL: brian.williams at unchs.org
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list