Advertisement

Assessing Corporate Influence on Climate Change Dialogue

  • Gretchen GoldmanEmail author
  • Francesca Grifo
  • Paul Rogerson
  • Benjamin L. Gutman
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 38)

Abstract

Companies help shape public dialogue around climate change, and corporate messages on the topic have been diverse: From support for international climate negotiations and green marketing campaigns to doubt about climate science and organized denial campaigns. A sample of 28 U.S.-based companies was analyzed to determine which of these corporate messages have aligned with climate science. In addition, sample companies were identified as consistent or inconsistent in actions related to climate-change. We found that although companies expressed concern about climate change or commitment to mitigation, half of the companies misrepresented climate science in public communications. This chapter concludes with ways to hold companies accountable for their statements on climate change and with recommendations for developing a more science-based dialogue.

Keywords

Corporate Social Responsibility Climate Policy Climate Science Sample Company Exxon Mobil 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Begley S, Conant E, Stein S, Clift E, Philips M (2007) The truth about denial. Newsweek, August 13, p 20Google Scholar
  2. Broder J (2011) Obama administration abandons stricter air-quality rules. New York Times, September 2. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/science/earth/03air.html?pagewanted=all
  3. Brown WM (1986) Hysteria about acid rain. Fortune, April 14. Retrieved from money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/04/14/67366/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown DA (2012) Ethical analysis of disinformation campaign’s tactics: (1) think tanks, (2) PR campaigns, (3) astroturf groups, and (4) cyber-bullying attacks. Penn State Rock Ethics Institute, State College. Retrieved from rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2012/02/ethical-analysis-of-disinformation-campaigns-tactics-1-think-tanks-2-pr-campaigns-3-astroturf-groups.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett RD, Hansen DR (2008) Ecoefficiency: defining a role for environmental cost management. Account Org Soc 33(6):551–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. California Secretary of State (2010) Proposition 023—suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops below specified level. Retrieved from cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id = 1324800&session = 2009Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter C (2001) Businesses, green groups, and the media: the role of nongovernmental organizations in the climate change debate. Int Aff 77:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopher M, Lehmann B, Gay D (2011) Monitoring long-term trends of acidic wet deposition in U.S. precipitation: results from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. PowerPlant Chem 7Google Scholar
  9. Cook J, Lewandowsky S (2011) The debunking handbook. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. http://sks.to/debunk
  10. Dahl R (2010) Greenwashing: do you know what you’re buying? Environ Health Perspect 118(6):247–252. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2898878/pdf/ehp-118-a246.pdf Google Scholar
  11. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2011) Organized climate change denial. In: Dryzek J, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D (eds) Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 144–160Google Scholar
  12. Ecker UK, Lewandowsky S, Swire B, Chang D (2011) Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychon Bull Rev 18:570–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009) Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
  14. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Asbestos ban and phase out. EPA, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ban.html
  15. Giving USA Foundation (2011) The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2010. Giving USA Foundation, Bloomington. Retrieved from www.givingusareports.org
  16. International Brotherhood of Teamsters General Fund (2010) Stockholder proposal relating to disclosure of political contributions. International Brotherhood of Teamsters General Fund, Washington, DC. Retrieved from google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID = 7150744-233956-250470&SessionID = n1mvHjaFdF12g77Google Scholar
  17. Jacques PJ, Dunlap RE (2008) The organisation of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environ Polit 17:349–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahn FS (1997) Pandora’s box: managerial discretion and the problem of corporate philanthropy. UCLA Law Rev 44(579):519–676Google Scholar
  20. Kolk A, Levy D (2001) Winds of change: corporate strategy, climate change, and oil multinationals. Eur Manag J 19(5):501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Layzer J (2007) Deep freeze. In: Kraft ME, Kamieniecki S (eds) Business and environmental policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 93–125Google Scholar
  22. Levy D, Egan D (2003) A neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. J Manag Stud 40(4):803–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13(3):106–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mann ME (2012) The hockey stick and the climate wars. Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthiessen P (1999) Environmentalist Rachel Carson. Time Magazine, March 29. Retrieved from www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990622-3,00.html
  26. McGarity TO, Wagner WE (2008) Harassing scientists. In: Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. Harvard University, Cambridge, pp 160–163Google Scholar
  27. Meyer SM (1995) The economic impact of environmental regulation. J Environ Law Pract 3(2):4–15Google Scholar
  28. Michaels D (2008) Workplace cancer before OSHA. In: Doubt is their product: how industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University, New York, pp 12–28Google Scholar
  29. National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) (2009) Comments in Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, Commenter 3704. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC) (1981) Atmosphere-biosphere interactions: toward a better understanding of the ecological consequences of fossil fuel combustion. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Tonello M (2011) Making the business case for corporate philanthropy. In Harvard Law School forum on corporate governance and financial regulation, August 20. Retrieved from blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/08/20/making-the-business-case-for-corporate-philanthropy/Google Scholar
  33. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (2008) Federal science and the public good: securing the integrity of science in policy making. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Federal-Science-and-the-Public-Good-12-08-Update.pdf
  34. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (2009) FDA medical device approval based on politics, not science. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/fda-medical-device-approval.html
  35. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (2012a) Heads they win, tails we lose: how corporations corrupt science at the public’s expense. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf
  36. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (2012b) A climate of corporate control: how corporations have influenced the U.S. dialogue on climate science and policy. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from www.ucsusa.org/corporateclimate
  37. U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2009) Comments in Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, Commenter 3347. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Vogel D (2005) The market for virtue: the potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Weber EU, Stern PC (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66:315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. YCharts (n.d.) Market capitalization of companies, 2009–2011. Retrieved from ycharts.com/Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gretchen Goldman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesca Grifo
    • 2
  • Paul Rogerson
    • 2
  • Benjamin L. Gutman
    • 2
  1. 1.Union of Concerned ScientistsWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Union of Concerned ScientistsWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations