SAY NO TO CORPORATE LOCUSTS

Say No to Corporate Locusts
Budi Widianarko

I took pleasure in reading Ong Hock Chuan’s column in this newspaper (March 24, 2006) commenting sympathetically on the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s statement defending the interest of foreign mining investors against the despotism of political elite. He advised that if the pressure on investors continues there a great chance that this country will lose its foreign investments. This, of course, sounds very reasonable and in favor of everybody’s interest.

Ong’s line of reasoning is well ordered and straightforward, thanks to his concise and yet eloquent phrases. Frankly, Ong’s article has enriched my understanding on the beauty of idea diversity, something that we should celebrate in this current age of post-modernism. However I am truly amazed at Ong’s stance with regard to the nature of corporations, including those called “big boys”.

Reading through his arguments, one will certainly get the impression that big foreign corporations are merely helpless creatures when facing criticisms by the political elite in this country. It is hard to accept as true that corporations, especially those in the international mining arena, are just powerless entities which can not defend themselves.
Actually, with experiences gained throughout the course of their existence corporations are already forced to devise themselves with multitude strategies to cope with external pressures. In this respect, corporations may resemble living organisms and behave accordingly. Thanks to John Elkington (The Chrysalis Economy, 2001) who has ingeniously categorized corporate environmental strategies according to four kinds of organism: the locusts, caterpillars, butterflies and honeybees. These groupings are based on a two dimensional character of the corporation, i.e. the nature of its resources utilization combined with the corresponding level of impact.
In terms of resource utilization, CORPORATE LOCUSTS are classified as a degenerative model with high impact on the environment. They are part of the “decreasing return” world, where the more they do something - the worse things get. Its characteristics include, among other, a highly unsustainable business model; a tendency to swarm, overwhelming habitat; destroys various forms of capital,; zero cross-pollination; and blind to early warnings.
CORPORATE CATERPILLARS are also representing a degenerative model. However, they are usually more difficult to spot than locusts. Here are some traits of corporate caterpillars: longer-term, an unsustainable business model; high “burn rate”; relatively local impacts; and potential for switching to regenerative model.

Two generative models are represented by CORPORATE BUTTERFLIES and CORPORATE HONEYBEES. They are part of the “increasing return” world. The first model are typified by a sustainable business model; strong commitment to corporate social responsibility or sustainable development (CSR/SD), high visibility, loud voice; may publicly attack locusts; widely networked; and commercial lightweight. The second model have the following traits: sustainable business model; strong business ethics; constant innovation, cross-pollination; capacity for heavy lifting; strategic use of natural capital and other resources; sophisticated technology; and multiple capital formation.

Unfortunately, most big mining corporations fall under the category of CORPORATE LOCUST. An infamous example of this model is Russian Aluminum, the world’s second largest aluminum producers. Which according to Elkington (2001) in a lawsuit filed in New York, the company has been accused of an array of crimes, including murder, death threats, fraud, bribery, and money laundering. Elkington also stated that apart from Russian Aluminum, the list of LOCUSTS is long, including Freeport-Mc MoRan Copper and Gold operated in Papua. (In page 80 of Elkington’s book you can find a detailed account on LOCUST-like behaviors performed by this corporation).

Being acquainted with their common attitudes, it seems safe to assume that it is nothing new for big mining corporations to dealing with social and environmental protests. In dealing with such pressures, Sharon Beder in her contentious book (GLOBAL SPIN, 2000), pointed out that actually big international corporation have been developing a special technique known as corporate activism. With their massive financial resources and power corporations defy claims made by environmentalist, to reshape public opinion and to persuade politician against tightened environmental regulation. In the western world, corporate activism which is ignited in the 1970s and rejuvenated in 1990s has enabled corporate agenda to dominate most debates about the state of the environment and what should be done about it. While numerous alternatives available, two most perilous, and yet most common modes of environmental activism are (1) the setting up of front groups, and (2) public relation strategies.

Basically, the first mode is like to put your works in someone else’s mouth. When a corporation wants to oppose environmental regulations, or support an environmentally damaging development, it may do so openly and in its own name. But it is far more effective to have a group of citizens or experts – and preferably a coalition of such groups – which can publicly promote the outcomes desired by the corporation whilst claiming to represent the public interest. When such groups do not already exist, the modern corporation can pay a public relation to create them. The use of such front groups enables corporation to take part in public debates and government hearings behind a cover of community concern. The names of corporate front groups are carefully chosen to mask the real interest behind them but they can usually be identified by their funding sources, membership and who controls them. In extreme cases, some front groups are quite blatant working out of the offices of public relation firms and having staff of those firms on their boards of directors. Two most striking examples for this is the Council for Solid Waste Solutions which shares office space with the Society of the plastic Industry, Inc., and the Oregon Lands Coalition which works out of the offices of the Association of Oregon Industries (see Beder, 2000).

The second mode is based on the so called “therapeutic alliance” – a technique commonly used by psychiatrists when dealing with an irrational patient – as described by Lindheim (1989) (see in Beder, 2000): “When an anxious patient first arrives, the psychiatrist will be a very sympathetic listener. The whole time that his mind is telling him that he has a raving lunatic on his hands, his mouth will be telling the patient that his problems are indeed quite impressive, and that he the psychiatrist is amazed at how well the patient is coping, given the enormity of the situation …Once that bound of trust is established, true therapy can begin and factual information can be transmitted”. Corporations can build a therapeutic alliance with the public, which they often consider as irrational and emotion-based reaction to environmental and social risks. Corporations, thus, must use their communications resources to demonstrate their commitments to solving environmental problems, and making environmental improvements. They employ risk communicators, whose job is to develop ways to effectively explain findings of the risk assessments done by company experts, and therefore to reassure the public and to win the people’s trust.

This two modes of corporate activism are not at all new in the environmental arena in this country. Clearly, corporate activism may cause serious danger to the aptitude of democratic societies to respond to environmental threats. It is therefore very crucial for political elite, NGOs, media and concerned individuals to constantly voice their critical account on the behavior of corporations – be it domestic or foreign investments. This country should certainly welcoming the butterflies and honeybees but rejecting the caterpillars and locusts.
--------------------------------
 The writer is a professor at SOEGIJAPRANATA CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, Semarang