MOTION : TH, as the environmental movement, would work closely with corporations
Key Clashes:
1. In which world are corporations held more accountable?
2. How is this likely to influence our goals as the environmental movement?
3. In which world do we achieve sustainability of our movement?
Clash 1 Gov:
? Clarity: what does the environmental movement seek to achieve? - buy in from international community to further their agendas, (CO2 reduction, sustainable energy, eco-friendly food production, etc.), publicity to promote awareness, education at the ground level, raising funds to sponsor eco-friendly practices, etc.
? Clarity: what does “working closely” look like? - e.g. promoting these corporations in exchange for being included in their internal decision making and voting, etc.
? Greater accountability:
● Preemptive approach rather than a curative one where corporations become the tools of environmental preservation rather than the problem of it - Easier to advise them on eco-friendly alternatives, decisions, etc. when we work closely with them
● Corporates are less likely to influence state to tailor environmental policies for their profit - why? 1. We can pressure them internally, 2. More likely to want to uphold brand image of “the environmentally friendly choice”
Clash 1 Opp:
? Less accountability:
● Become reliant on their money and publicity to fund our movement, thus: 1. We bend our policies and stance to be more friendly to what they want, 2. Harder to call them out when they mess up
Clash 2 Gov:
? Time crunch: environmental movement needs resources and publicity fast - why? Running out of time on the urgent issue of climate change - corporates are the fastest and most fruitful way to get resources and money quickly
? Environmental change can be implemented on various levels: e.g. organic farming practices, transport systems, etc. Thus, awareness and knowledge of eco-friendly practices through publicity or funded educational projects can create the impact we want as a movement; Even if we must tailor our policies slightly for corporates, we still get more change from the resources they give us to implement projects etc.
Clash 2 Opp:
? Public perception: we will be viewed as hypocritical for needing money from the same actors who ruin the environment = 1. less trust in environmental movement, 2. Less buy-in from groups who were moderate on the issue (who are majority in most cases)
? Corporates now profit from marketing themselves as the “environmental choice” - more likely to publicize that without actually implementing meaningful change - why? 1. Profit incentive, 2. Dependence on corporations gives environmental movement less power to influence/pressure them
Clash 3 Gov:
? Comparative:
● Gov world: more likely to influence larger audience cause of competition aspect of corporates (i.e. marketability of the environmental angle), thus we are more likely to get buy-in from more corporates
● Opp world: may lead to isolation of the environmental movement as they are a force against corporates, in their best case it takes a much longer time to gain the same publicity and resources, and we are in a time crunch
Clash 3 Opp:
? Comparative:
● Opp world: we maintain the integrity and credibility of the movement as we can actively pressure the state and corporates from the outside (e.g. campaigns, pressure groups, boycotting companies, protests, spreading word on social media, etc.) = easier to call out corporates, get buy-in in line with our goals, and not be pressured to tailor them to corporates
● Gov world: gives corporates direct control over the environmental movement and how much they actually want to change - less impact in actuality, harder to maintain consistent buy-in with changing goals aligned to corporates, loss of credibility as a movement
