Changing Businesses for Good: Activist interventions in the Age of Environmental Catastrophe
International conference, 19-20 December 2022
International conference, 19-20 December 2022
Day one: Monday 19 December
10:00 Keynote speech
Adam rome, university at buffalo
Changing Incentives, Changing Rules. A U.S. Historian’s Perspective on Efforts to Green Business
10:00 Keynote speech
Adam rome, university at buffalo
Changing Incentives, Changing Rules. A U.S. Historian’s Perspective on Efforts to Green Business
Why would businesses try to be greener? For most of American history, entrepreneurs and corporations had powerful incentives to exploit natural resources and pollute air and water. They could make more money as destroyers than protectors of the environment. That began to change in the 1970s, when federal legislation forced industry to control pollution. In the last 30 years, many U.S. companies have gone “beyond compliance” with environmental regulations. They have cut production of waste, greened supply chains, and developed more environmentally friendly goods and services. A few companies have made sustainability central to their business models. Those efforts have come partly because activists, consumers, investors, and policymakers have changed incentives and rules that guide business decision-making. Yet the hard truth is that the economy merely has become less unsustainable. As a historian, I’m convinced that we can’t do better if we don’t understand the limits of corporate sustainability initiatives so far. What has driven reform, and what has stood in the way? This talk will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of efforts by outsiders to change business for the good.
Discussant: Peter van Dam, University of Amsterdam
11:30 Coffee & tea break
11:45 Stakeholder activism
Sabine Pitteloud, University of Geneva
Have Faith in Business : Nestlé Confronting Religious Activists since the 1980s
11:30 Coffee & tea break
11:45 Stakeholder activism
Sabine Pitteloud, University of Geneva
Have Faith in Business : Nestlé Confronting Religious Activists since the 1980s
This contribution focuses on religious activists at Nestlé, one of the biggest multinationals in the food-processing industry. In the 1980s, a group of religious shareholder, called CANES (Convention d’actionnaires Nestlé), was led by members of Catholic and Protestant families who had inherited Nestlé shares and who wished to see Nestlé’s strategy being more in harmony with religious and ethical guidelines. By triangulating archival material produced by activists as well as corporate board members, the analysis seeks to answer the following questions: what were CANES’ motivations and tactics? Which strategies did Nestlé’s leading figures developed in response to such activism? What is CANES’ legacy? Such historical perspective sheds light on the roots of socially responsible investment (SRI). Moreover, Nestlé’s recent commitment to “shared value” and to the ambitious net zero emissions roadmap gain to be critically assessed within this long-term contestation story.
Gaard Kets and Tjidde Tempels, Radboud University
Working on change: workplace democracy and political corporate social responsibility in times of climate catastrophe
Working on change: workplace democracy and political corporate social responsibility in times of climate catastrophe
In our presentation, we hope to critically reconcile two strategies to change businesses for good. The first strategy is what has become known as ‘political corporate social responsibility’, which aims at including the interest many societal actors in the decision making processes of companies. The second strategy is workplace democracy, which aims at giving the employees of companies influence on how the company is run.
The first strategy has been dominant in the past few years, and was intended to make companies more responsive to societal challenges such as climate change, radical inequality, and rising authoritarianism. But the strategy has also run into several problems. For example, it appears to be linked to a neoliberal conception of the small state, to a global rather than a local ‘society’ and to abstract ideals rather than concrete issues. These are exactly issues that the second strategy, of democratic workplaces, might help to solve. In our presentation we hope to explain why this is the case. One argument that we will explore is the idea that democratic conversation and decision making leads to better choices within the management of the firm, and potentially also to more action from these firms regarding their role in the struggle against climate change.
The first strategy has been dominant in the past few years, and was intended to make companies more responsive to societal challenges such as climate change, radical inequality, and rising authoritarianism. But the strategy has also run into several problems. For example, it appears to be linked to a neoliberal conception of the small state, to a global rather than a local ‘society’ and to abstract ideals rather than concrete issues. These are exactly issues that the second strategy, of democratic workplaces, might help to solve. In our presentation we hope to explain why this is the case. One argument that we will explore is the idea that democratic conversation and decision making leads to better choices within the management of the firm, and potentially also to more action from these firms regarding their role in the struggle against climate change.
Discussant: Panikos Georgallis, University of Amsterdam
12:45 Lunch
14:00 Recycling
Maaike Jansen, University of Amsterdam
Recycling as empowerment? The gendered politics of waste
12:45 Lunch
14:00 Recycling
Maaike Jansen, University of Amsterdam
Recycling as empowerment? The gendered politics of waste
As ‘the limits to growth’ gained widespread attention since the 1970s, women’s organizations claimed their constituency could play a crucial role in addressing the problem of waste. My paper analyses the history of the Dutch Association of Housewives to show how the search for ways to counteract the environmental crisis prompted a gendered response to waste. After initially aiming to reduce waste during the 1970s, the focus of the Dutch Association of Housewives and other women’s groups shifted towards reuse. Practices of thrift had long been presented as a female response to scarcity. Such practices were now reinterpreted in the light of environmental concerns. Women’s organizations would go on to pioneer recycling as a consumer practice, enlisting companies directly and pushing for government regulation on the issue. Positioning the consumer as an essential and empowered actor in relation to businesses and the state, they claimed that contributing to the reuse of waste was a distinctly female responsibility and an opportunity for women to make a difference. In doing so, they expanded the notion of the female consumer, who was not just in charge of household consumption but also responsible for the proper disposal of household waste.
Maria Zwicker, university of Amsterdam
Do Consumers Want Sustainability? Consumer Attitudes and Willingness to Buy Sustainable Alternatives
Do Consumers Want Sustainability? Consumer Attitudes and Willingness to Buy Sustainable Alternatives
While the majority of consumers indicate a willingness to consume more sustainably, this rarely translates into commensurate behaviour. I investigate which factors relate to consumers’ intent to purchase sustainable alternatives, such as bio-based plastics and a Fairphone smartphone. Using a variety of methodologies, I find consistent consumer demand for sustainable alternatives, but also a general lack of knowledge about their properties. For example, I find that providing information about the properties of bio-based plastic can dispel misconceptions while retaining positive attitudes and willingness to pay a price premium, and that the design of the product plays an important role. People’s intentions to switch to a Fairphone seem mostly influenced by psychological factors (e.g., attitudes and emotions), rather than product and producer-related factors (e.g., price or technical characteristics). Consumer decisions influence the uptake of sustainable alternatives through their purchase decisions. Understanding what psychological factors play a role in consumer decision-making to switch to more sustainable products is a vital step in the fight against climate change.
Magdolna Molnár, University of Regensburg
Challenging the increasing e-waste in Europe: the Right to Repair Movement
Challenging the increasing e-waste in Europe: the Right to Repair Movement
In the last two decades, discarded electronic equipment has become one of the fastest growing and most problematic waste streams in Europe (Forti et al. 2020). Due to the energy intensive mining of raw materials for laptops and smart phones, and the high concentration of precious resources in these objects, it has been argued that large sustainability gains can be made by extending the lifespan of these popular consumer goods (Öko-Institut 2020, Baldé et al. 2015). However, despite some important advances of reparability polices for electronics in recent years, an extensive legislation covering also laptops and smart phones has yet to be introduced. Repair and reuse are considered to represent an “intentional resistance” against capitalist markets (Albinsson and Perera 2012). However, scholars have argued that repair activities are often ”invisible tasks” and their significance remain neglected (Graham and Thrift 2007). This presentation will explore in what ways NGOs of the European Right to Repair Movement have contributed to bring more importance to repair activities, and thus challenged current linear production and consumption practices of electronics.
The presentation will address the following aspects through examples from own interviews conducted with representatives of the European Right to Repair Movement:
- What strategies have these advocacy groups applied in their campaigns? To what extent were these successful?
- To what extent have they tried to cooperate with business actors?
- What main obstacles have they faced in their campaigns and how did they try to overcome them?
The presentation will address the following aspects through examples from own interviews conducted with representatives of the European Right to Repair Movement:
- What strategies have these advocacy groups applied in their campaigns? To what extent were these successful?
- To what extent have they tried to cooperate with business actors?
- What main obstacles have they faced in their campaigns and how did they try to overcome them?
Discussant: John Grin, University of Amsterdam
15:30 Coffee and tea break
16:00 Public engagement and activism
Jawhar Cholakkathodi, University of Calicut
Mapping the shift from Agro-business to a Services Provider: Public Engagement and New Corporate Culture in India
15:30 Coffee and tea break
16:00 Public engagement and activism
Jawhar Cholakkathodi, University of Calicut
Mapping the shift from Agro-business to a Services Provider: Public Engagement and New Corporate Culture in India
Indian social and economic fabrics have been shaped and reshaped by agriculture and related practices. Thus, any intervention in the field of agriculture affects the political and governance architecture of the country. The Green Revolution of the 1960s and subsequent developments in the industrial agriculture marked a drastic shift in the traditional agricultural practices in the country. In the post-gene revolution period we witnessed a proliferation of agri-business in different parts of the country. With the collaboration and active engagement of local research institutions, and companies, multinational companies started their operation in India.
In the 1990s, the new economic policies and international strategies facilitated Monsanto for the commencement of their operation in India. They collaborated with Indian Universities, Indian agri-business firms, distributors and farmers for expanding their market. These developments triggered responses from civil society and activists. In the early 1990s we witnessed a proliferation of local, regional, and transnational movements against multinational agri-business corporations. They played a key role in drawing public attention to different issues related with the corporate agricultural practices. They challenged corporate strategies and highlighted the importance of incorporating societal and environmental concerns in corporate practices. The activists interventions and campaigns such as ‘Monsanto- Quit India’, ‘We are not lab Rat’ ‘Monsanto Go Back’ ‘Food Sovereignty Moments’ etc., triggered public debate and criticism on the negative impacts of Monsanto’s activities and products. These anti-globalization movements and fear of corporate takeover of Indian agriculture activated and mobilized public opinion against corporate looting and making farmers depends of the multinational corporations.
Monsanto responded to these challenges through the adaptation, partnership and dialogue. They changed their business strategies and mode of operation according to the socio, political and legal context of India. The company transformed from a seeds and Biotechnology Company into one which provides different services such as weather information, farming and seed support to farmers. Through providing these kinds of agronomic solutions Monsanto tried to address different environmental catastrophies and ecological issues.
In this context, this paper is an attempt to understand three decades of activists engagements with Monsanto’s agribusiness strategies in Indian subcontinent. It critically engages with these new strategies and its effects in the grass root level. It also analyze how it changed the existing corporate strategies and working culture in the context of agribusiness. By mapping activist interventions and changing corporate strategies, this paper argues that, activists critical engagement with the activities and products of the multinational corporations and agri-business companies forced them to transform and adopt sustainable agricultural practices.
In the 1990s, the new economic policies and international strategies facilitated Monsanto for the commencement of their operation in India. They collaborated with Indian Universities, Indian agri-business firms, distributors and farmers for expanding their market. These developments triggered responses from civil society and activists. In the early 1990s we witnessed a proliferation of local, regional, and transnational movements against multinational agri-business corporations. They played a key role in drawing public attention to different issues related with the corporate agricultural practices. They challenged corporate strategies and highlighted the importance of incorporating societal and environmental concerns in corporate practices. The activists interventions and campaigns such as ‘Monsanto- Quit India’, ‘We are not lab Rat’ ‘Monsanto Go Back’ ‘Food Sovereignty Moments’ etc., triggered public debate and criticism on the negative impacts of Monsanto’s activities and products. These anti-globalization movements and fear of corporate takeover of Indian agriculture activated and mobilized public opinion against corporate looting and making farmers depends of the multinational corporations.
Monsanto responded to these challenges through the adaptation, partnership and dialogue. They changed their business strategies and mode of operation according to the socio, political and legal context of India. The company transformed from a seeds and Biotechnology Company into one which provides different services such as weather information, farming and seed support to farmers. Through providing these kinds of agronomic solutions Monsanto tried to address different environmental catastrophies and ecological issues.
In this context, this paper is an attempt to understand three decades of activists engagements with Monsanto’s agribusiness strategies in Indian subcontinent. It critically engages with these new strategies and its effects in the grass root level. It also analyze how it changed the existing corporate strategies and working culture in the context of agribusiness. By mapping activist interventions and changing corporate strategies, this paper argues that, activists critical engagement with the activities and products of the multinational corporations and agri-business companies forced them to transform and adopt sustainable agricultural practices.
Xanthippi Alexi Vassiliou, University of Amsterdam
Psychological factors accompanying climate change relevant public action in the U.S. Latinx
Psychological factors accompanying climate change relevant public action in the U.S. Latinx
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must change the systems (energy etc.) that promote and sustain the emissions. Systemic change requires public action. If we understand the psychological determinants of climate change-relevant public action, we may encourage such action in hope of systemic change. As the second largest population in a high-emitting country, the U.S. Latinx can bring on change. They also feel more threatened by climate change and are more motivated to act compared to U.S. Whites. However, Latinx's public action engagement is just as low. Previous findings have highlighted efficacy beliefs, ascription of responsibility, personal, descriptive, and injunctive norms, and identifying with environmental groups as drivers of climate change relevant public action. Using a survey, we tested if the above factors predicted self-reported public action in the U.S. Latinx (N = 566). We found that the probability of having engaged with all actions measured increased with personal and descriptive norms, and identification with environmental groups. In addition, self-efficacy also predicted donating and voting behaviour. Targeting the above psychological factors with message campaigns and interventions may encourage the already motivated U.S. Latinx to act against climate change.
Lonneke van der Velden, University of Amsterdam, and Marleen van der Zanden, Greenpeace
Digital Civil Disobedience for Climate Justice
Digital Civil Disobedience for Climate Justice
This position paper aims to kick-off a discussion about the state of ‘digital civil disobedience’ and its relevance for contemporary climate and social justice movements. We discuss digital action repertoires of climate activists in the past and present, and reflect upon how climate justice movements can give new shape to digital civil disobedience strategies in the future as a way to push companies for change.
The early internet carried plenty of promises for the reinvention of democracy, in terms of public debates and citizen participation. From the nineties onward, people have invented new digital forms of participative practices and protests, including virtual protests (Züger, Milan, and Tanczer 2015; Critical Art Ensemble 1996). Despite the democratic promises of the internet, it has developed into a set of largely privatized and controlled spaces, in which the digital ‘squares’ are owned by social
media companies. Much has been written and said about the benefits and risks of using popular social media platforms in the context of protests (Tufekci 2017). But what about digital activism outside of the realm of social media? To what extend did social and environmental justice movements continue to make use of digital resistance against companies? How did companies respond to these new forms of action? And most importantly: How can digital technologies be (re)claimed as sites and means for (direct) democratic action in the context of the climate movement?
In the paper we show a palette of digital activism strategies. ‘Electronic disobedience’ was developed in the mid-nineties in support of the Zapatistas (Dominguez 2009). A decade later there were hacktivist groups (eg. Decocidio, targeting the public website of the European Climate Exchange in 2010) and a diverse range of awareness raising ‘tactical media’ practices that triggered responses by companies and the public. One example is the Yes Men's ‘Bhopal Disaster Hoax’ targeting Dow Chemical (Robinson and Bell 2013). We also discuss how, in the present time, data-based technologies allow for new imaginations of ‘data activism’ (Milan 2017) and ‘disobedient sensing’ (Heller, Pezzani, and Stierl 2017). Examples include activist drones for counter-mapping against palm oil and mining companies (in Radjawali and Pye 2017) , obfuscation methods via social media interventions, such as the massive false Facebook check-ins that obfuscated the surveillance of protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline (Energy Transfer LP), and the speculative adbusting campaign by the PENG!’ Collective against Nestlé to counter the company’s green-washing strategies. Lastly, we discuss Greenpeace’s recent proposals to rethink digital strategies for direct action in the local Dutch context.1
On a scholarly level, the paper contributes to existing work on contemporary civil disobedience (Celikates 2016; Dominguez 2009), changing action repertoires (Beraldo and Milan 2019) and environmental activism in the digital age (Jacqmarcq 2021). On a societal level, the study contributes to discussions within climate justice movements about the right to protest. The right to protest is a fundamental European right and we are investigating how the right to protest online can be further established
The early internet carried plenty of promises for the reinvention of democracy, in terms of public debates and citizen participation. From the nineties onward, people have invented new digital forms of participative practices and protests, including virtual protests (Züger, Milan, and Tanczer 2015; Critical Art Ensemble 1996). Despite the democratic promises of the internet, it has developed into a set of largely privatized and controlled spaces, in which the digital ‘squares’ are owned by social
media companies. Much has been written and said about the benefits and risks of using popular social media platforms in the context of protests (Tufekci 2017). But what about digital activism outside of the realm of social media? To what extend did social and environmental justice movements continue to make use of digital resistance against companies? How did companies respond to these new forms of action? And most importantly: How can digital technologies be (re)claimed as sites and means for (direct) democratic action in the context of the climate movement?
In the paper we show a palette of digital activism strategies. ‘Electronic disobedience’ was developed in the mid-nineties in support of the Zapatistas (Dominguez 2009). A decade later there were hacktivist groups (eg. Decocidio, targeting the public website of the European Climate Exchange in 2010) and a diverse range of awareness raising ‘tactical media’ practices that triggered responses by companies and the public. One example is the Yes Men's ‘Bhopal Disaster Hoax’ targeting Dow Chemical (Robinson and Bell 2013). We also discuss how, in the present time, data-based technologies allow for new imaginations of ‘data activism’ (Milan 2017) and ‘disobedient sensing’ (Heller, Pezzani, and Stierl 2017). Examples include activist drones for counter-mapping against palm oil and mining companies (in Radjawali and Pye 2017) , obfuscation methods via social media interventions, such as the massive false Facebook check-ins that obfuscated the surveillance of protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline (Energy Transfer LP), and the speculative adbusting campaign by the PENG!’ Collective against Nestlé to counter the company’s green-washing strategies. Lastly, we discuss Greenpeace’s recent proposals to rethink digital strategies for direct action in the local Dutch context.1
On a scholarly level, the paper contributes to existing work on contemporary civil disobedience (Celikates 2016; Dominguez 2009), changing action repertoires (Beraldo and Milan 2019) and environmental activism in the digital age (Jacqmarcq 2021). On a societal level, the study contributes to discussions within climate justice movements about the right to protest. The right to protest is a fundamental European right and we are investigating how the right to protest online can be further established
Discussant: Luc Fransen, University of Amsterdam
17:30 drinks at ub doelenzaal
day two: Tuesday 2o december
10:00 keynote speech
Ann pettifor
To Change Businesses for Good means Changing the Financial System for Good
17:30 drinks at ub doelenzaal
day two: Tuesday 2o december
10:00 keynote speech
Ann pettifor
To Change Businesses for Good means Changing the Financial System for Good
We cannot begin to think about ‘changing business for good’ if we do not, at the same time give thought to the international system into which most large businesses are now deeply integrated. Second, to consider the impact of the globalised system on smaller businesses that tend to be rooted in the domestic economy.
The international financial system has been designed – albeit haphazardly – to benefit the owners of wealth – crudely defined as the 1%. The evidence for this is clear. The share of wealth that now accrues to the 1% is vast, and historically unprecedented.
This wealth has multiplied thanks to four characteristics of the international system: capital mobility; rent-seeking and asset price inflation coupled with debt inflation. The wealthy have been aided in wealth accumulation by accommodative central bankers, who have acted to ‘de-risk’ the activities of speculators based on Wall St and other financial entrepots.
Unfortunately the system’s bias towards rent-seeking from inflated assets has led to a decline in productive investment and to falling wages and incomes worldwide. And because the wealthy tend to save more than they spend; while those on lower incomes tend to spend all they earn, the decline in wages has led to declines in purchasing power. This has meant: too many goods and services chasing too little purchasing power. Alternatively over-production and under-consumption. That, and the overhang of debt, has been bad for business.
The international financial system has been designed – albeit haphazardly – to benefit the owners of wealth – crudely defined as the 1%. The evidence for this is clear. The share of wealth that now accrues to the 1% is vast, and historically unprecedented.
This wealth has multiplied thanks to four characteristics of the international system: capital mobility; rent-seeking and asset price inflation coupled with debt inflation. The wealthy have been aided in wealth accumulation by accommodative central bankers, who have acted to ‘de-risk’ the activities of speculators based on Wall St and other financial entrepots.
Unfortunately the system’s bias towards rent-seeking from inflated assets has led to a decline in productive investment and to falling wages and incomes worldwide. And because the wealthy tend to save more than they spend; while those on lower incomes tend to spend all they earn, the decline in wages has led to declines in purchasing power. This has meant: too many goods and services chasing too little purchasing power. Alternatively over-production and under-consumption. That, and the overhang of debt, has been bad for business.
Discussant: Valerie Schreur, University of Amsterdam
11:30 coffee and tea break
11:45 civil disobedience
Claudia Hacke, Utrecht University
“No Grounds for Dumping": Greenpeace's intervention in Shell's 1995 Brent Spar disposal plan
11:30 coffee and tea break
11:45 civil disobedience
Claudia Hacke, Utrecht University
“No Grounds for Dumping": Greenpeace's intervention in Shell's 1995 Brent Spar disposal plan
In order to shed a light on how activists have challenged businesses over the last fifty years, I will use the (in)famous Brent Spar campaign as a lens through which to investigate activist interventions. In 1995, Greenpeace, Shell and the UK government were on opposite ends of a controversy over the fate of the Brent Spar oil buoy. With Shell and the UK government wanting to sink it at sea and environmental activists wanting to prevent that, a broad range of tactics were employed to win over the hearts and minds of the public – and eventually, to make Shell change its course of action. After almost two months of campaigning (including two occupations, political and legal lobbying, a high-profile media campaign and a consumer boycott), Shell decided to abandon its disposal plan – much to the delight of Greenpeace and the anger of the UK government.
This presentation aims to analyze how Greenpeace set up the international Brent Spar campaign, which tactics the activists employed, and which of those were successful and which were not. In addition to this, it reflects on the aftermath of the campaign, when Greenpeace was attacked for having presented faulty scientific data, and the activists suddenly had to look after their own reputation as well. Lastly, looking at Shell’s response during and after the campaign, it raises the question if business has actually been changed for good – or whether the Brent Spar campaign was ‘just’ another campaign.
This presentation aims to analyze how Greenpeace set up the international Brent Spar campaign, which tactics the activists employed, and which of those were successful and which were not. In addition to this, it reflects on the aftermath of the campaign, when Greenpeace was attacked for having presented faulty scientific data, and the activists suddenly had to look after their own reputation as well. Lastly, looking at Shell’s response during and after the campaign, it raises the question if business has actually been changed for good – or whether the Brent Spar campaign was ‘just’ another campaign.
Harriet Bergman (TRACTIE, Stroomversnellers, University of Antwerp) and Ilona Hartlief (Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen, Future Beyond Shell) and Selcuk Balamir (The Guerilla Foundation).
Interactive workshop Shell Must Fall: theories of change and campaign lessons
Interactive workshop Shell Must Fall: theories of change and campaign lessons
Based on the insights and methods of Trainings for Change and TRACTIE, the Shell Must Fall campaign will host an interactive activist workshop on theories of change.
Shell Must Fall built on struggles of farmers, fisherfolk, frontline communities, unions and indigenous groups who have contested, resisted and exposed Shell’s impact on their land, water and human rights for decades. We believe that Shell cannot be nudged in the right direction and consider the company legally and structurally inadequate for implementing necessary changes itself. We will discuss both how we’ve collaborated with different groups on the campaign and how we’ve drafted our narratives accordingly.
A ‘just transition’ is not only about tackling Shell, but it is about fundamentally questioning the system on which the company thrives. Shell is both a symbol and a champion of the system that has enriched it, and so understanding the workings of Shell, therefore, provides insight into the workings of global multinationals in general.
We’ve started to explore the pathways beyond Shell and what genuine, transformative, systemic, or redistributive change means. This led to the “Future Beyond Shell” campaign. Collaborating with a wide range of allies and partners, “Shell Must Fall”, “Future Beyond Shell” and “After Shell” belong to a larger ecology of practices that include Fossil Free Culture, the court case by Milieudefensie and other campaigns targeting Shell. These exemplify the broadening range of practices that can be deployed in iconic fights, but they also testify to shifting strategies in anticapitalist struggles.
In this activist intervention, we will facilitate a discussion about theories of change and ecologies of movement. What is a theory of change? How did we build alignment between different segments of the climate movement and the broader society about goals and methods? What are the different roles within an ecology of movement?
Shell Must Fall built on struggles of farmers, fisherfolk, frontline communities, unions and indigenous groups who have contested, resisted and exposed Shell’s impact on their land, water and human rights for decades. We believe that Shell cannot be nudged in the right direction and consider the company legally and structurally inadequate for implementing necessary changes itself. We will discuss both how we’ve collaborated with different groups on the campaign and how we’ve drafted our narratives accordingly.
A ‘just transition’ is not only about tackling Shell, but it is about fundamentally questioning the system on which the company thrives. Shell is both a symbol and a champion of the system that has enriched it, and so understanding the workings of Shell, therefore, provides insight into the workings of global multinationals in general.
We’ve started to explore the pathways beyond Shell and what genuine, transformative, systemic, or redistributive change means. This led to the “Future Beyond Shell” campaign. Collaborating with a wide range of allies and partners, “Shell Must Fall”, “Future Beyond Shell” and “After Shell” belong to a larger ecology of practices that include Fossil Free Culture, the court case by Milieudefensie and other campaigns targeting Shell. These exemplify the broadening range of practices that can be deployed in iconic fights, but they also testify to shifting strategies in anticapitalist struggles.
In this activist intervention, we will facilitate a discussion about theories of change and ecologies of movement. What is a theory of change? How did we build alignment between different segments of the climate movement and the broader society about goals and methods? What are the different roles within an ecology of movement?
Discussant: Gerrit Schaafsma, University of Amsterdam
13:15 Lunch
14:30 Green markets
Thomas Harbøll Schrøder, KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Purchasing Power for a Green Tomorrow – RE100 and the Corporate Imaginary of a Sustainable Energy Transition
13:15 Lunch
14:30 Green markets
Thomas Harbøll Schrøder, KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Purchasing Power for a Green Tomorrow – RE100 and the Corporate Imaginary of a Sustainable Energy Transition
Global environmental governance took a symbolic commencement at the Stockholm Conference in 1972. Since then, hundreds of multilateral agreements were signed and numerous international institutions were established all of which addressed the environment in one way or another. While partly being a reaction to the environmental movement global environmental governance originally took place between nation states and represented a new type of internationalism. However, many experts and laypeople alike gradually lost faith in this approach given its limited success in tackling overwhelming issues such as constantly rising species extinction, plastic pollution, and climate change.
Already in the 1980s, some commentators expressed a wish that traditional international agreements would be supplemented by alternative environmental governance measures, for example through the active engagement of corporate businesses and NGOs. At the same time, were both an antagonistic and a symbiotic relationship between corporate businesses and environmental activists. Activists drew attention to and protested damages to the environment directly or indirectly caused by corporate businesses. Maybe as response, businesses appeared to make efforts on managing and solving shared environmental problems. In some cases, environmental NGOs even worked together with corporate businesses to tackle environmental issues. The development towards new and alternative governance of the environment has been constantly changing with new actors and measures emerging.
One relatively recent alternative measure is the business initiative RE100 started in a coalition between multinational businesses and two non-profit-organisations, the Climate Group and CDP. RE100 brings together businesses pledging to be supplied by 100% renewable electricity. RE100 bypasses certain challenges associated with traditional diplomacy since it does not rely on broad agreements as those who want to act, can do so. In addition, RE100 members, counting many of the world’s major companies, control in combination a large capital that potentially can be set to work to increase renewable energy production. In this way, an initiative such as RE100 may have more flexibility than national governments and more direct economic power than many environmental NGOs.
Setting renewable energy targets through RE100 and similar initiatives such as the Science Based Targets seems indeed to increase companies’ share of renewable electricity. Such emerging and different ways of addressing environmental issues may therefore give reason to optimism and curiosity, but could also lead to a cry of greenwashing. RE100 constructs renewable energy as indisputably positive and clean. In this respect, the business initiative is part of a sociotechnical imaginary of renewable energy as the solution to many of the world’s
large environmental problems. This imaginary, however, may be overly optimistic. As renewable energy scales up, what Bruno Latour calls the ‘fifty shades of green’ become more evident and a vision of endless green growth empowered by cleaner and better technology may appear naïve. This paper examines RE100 as part of wider imaginary of renewable energy, as a tool in the global environmental governance toolbox and as part of struggle and cooperation between environmental activists and corporate businesses.
Already in the 1980s, some commentators expressed a wish that traditional international agreements would be supplemented by alternative environmental governance measures, for example through the active engagement of corporate businesses and NGOs. At the same time, were both an antagonistic and a symbiotic relationship between corporate businesses and environmental activists. Activists drew attention to and protested damages to the environment directly or indirectly caused by corporate businesses. Maybe as response, businesses appeared to make efforts on managing and solving shared environmental problems. In some cases, environmental NGOs even worked together with corporate businesses to tackle environmental issues. The development towards new and alternative governance of the environment has been constantly changing with new actors and measures emerging.
One relatively recent alternative measure is the business initiative RE100 started in a coalition between multinational businesses and two non-profit-organisations, the Climate Group and CDP. RE100 brings together businesses pledging to be supplied by 100% renewable electricity. RE100 bypasses certain challenges associated with traditional diplomacy since it does not rely on broad agreements as those who want to act, can do so. In addition, RE100 members, counting many of the world’s major companies, control in combination a large capital that potentially can be set to work to increase renewable energy production. In this way, an initiative such as RE100 may have more flexibility than national governments and more direct economic power than many environmental NGOs.
Setting renewable energy targets through RE100 and similar initiatives such as the Science Based Targets seems indeed to increase companies’ share of renewable electricity. Such emerging and different ways of addressing environmental issues may therefore give reason to optimism and curiosity, but could also lead to a cry of greenwashing. RE100 constructs renewable energy as indisputably positive and clean. In this respect, the business initiative is part of a sociotechnical imaginary of renewable energy as the solution to many of the world’s
large environmental problems. This imaginary, however, may be overly optimistic. As renewable energy scales up, what Bruno Latour calls the ‘fifty shades of green’ become more evident and a vision of endless green growth empowered by cleaner and better technology may appear naïve. This paper examines RE100 as part of wider imaginary of renewable energy, as a tool in the global environmental governance toolbox and as part of struggle and cooperation between environmental activists and corporate businesses.
Panikos Georgallis, University of Amsterdam, and Todd Schifeling, Temple University
Rarely pure and never simple: The influence of social movements on moral markets
Rarely pure and never simple: The influence of social movements on moral markets
The involvement of social movements in markets has a long and deep history, and
recently scholars have found strong evidence that social movements are a key factor particularly in shaping moral markets: markets that emerge to address social or environmental problems. Markets such as recycling, fair trade products, organic goods, and renewable energy were all heavily influenced by social movement organizations motivated to promote market solutions to sustainability challenges.
Social movements often foster these markets through their influence on policy. Policy changes, in turn, provide economic opportunities that encourage entrepreneurship and productive activity in these sectors. But less is known about social movements’ role in spurring adoption. While research shows that policy-driven market opportunities are often instigated by social movement organizations, we ask: under what conditions do social movements induce demand for moral markets in the absence of a clear market opportunity (e.g. without policy support) or conditional on a profitable market opportunity (e.g. once supportive policy is established)? Are social movements necessary for the demand growth in moral markets; and, if not, under what conditions can moral markets grow in the absence of a strong supportive movement?
In this paper, we take as our starting point the idea that the outcomes of social movements tend to be combinatorial in nature; that they depend on context; and that a comparative perspective can yield new insights into how the influence of social movements on demand growth is conditioned by the political, cultural, and industry opportunity of the country context. We use fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs-QCA) to analyze data from the solar energy market across EU countries—a setting characterized by strong heterogeneity in in environmental movement strength, opportunity, and market success.
recently scholars have found strong evidence that social movements are a key factor particularly in shaping moral markets: markets that emerge to address social or environmental problems. Markets such as recycling, fair trade products, organic goods, and renewable energy were all heavily influenced by social movement organizations motivated to promote market solutions to sustainability challenges.
Social movements often foster these markets through their influence on policy. Policy changes, in turn, provide economic opportunities that encourage entrepreneurship and productive activity in these sectors. But less is known about social movements’ role in spurring adoption. While research shows that policy-driven market opportunities are often instigated by social movement organizations, we ask: under what conditions do social movements induce demand for moral markets in the absence of a clear market opportunity (e.g. without policy support) or conditional on a profitable market opportunity (e.g. once supportive policy is established)? Are social movements necessary for the demand growth in moral markets; and, if not, under what conditions can moral markets grow in the absence of a strong supportive movement?
In this paper, we take as our starting point the idea that the outcomes of social movements tend to be combinatorial in nature; that they depend on context; and that a comparative perspective can yield new insights into how the influence of social movements on demand growth is conditioned by the political, cultural, and industry opportunity of the country context. We use fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs-QCA) to analyze data from the solar energy market across EU countries—a setting characterized by strong heterogeneity in in environmental movement strength, opportunity, and market success.
Discussant: Jens van ’t Klooster, University of Amsterdam
15:30 coffee and tea break
16:00 working with the state
Koen van Zon, Maastricht University.
Aloof allies? European institutions and grassroots grievances against industrialized capitalism, 1970s-1990s
15:30 coffee and tea break
16:00 working with the state
Koen van Zon, Maastricht University.
Aloof allies? European institutions and grassroots grievances against industrialized capitalism, 1970s-1990s
In a world of globalizing capitalism, where do local communities turn when confronted with business malpractices which negatively affect the environment and their health? This presentation explores grassroots protests which took an unusual course of action in fighting pollution, dumping or extraction: seeking justice and acknowledgement at the European level. From the 1970s onwards, the European Community (EC) and the Council of Europe increasingly sought to represent public interests by intervening in environmental, consumer and public health affairs. As a consequence, citizens taking on corporations started appealing to European institutions, such as the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights. This presentation marks the beginning of a research project on grassroots protests that attained a European character as activists scaled up their efforts. They often appealed to lower levels of government without success before making the leap to Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg. They did so, moreover, without the professional assistance of NGOs. So how exactly did ordinary Europeans move through these layers of government, and how did their activism evolve as they went along? This project is an attempt to write the history of European integration from below, and to question received perceptions of European institutions as being aloof, technocratic and inaccessible.
This research can tell us something about how these activists perceived the institutions they addressed. Did they see them as allies or did they see them as extensions of the very globalized capitalism they struggled against? And how responsive were these institutions to these grassroots grievances? This presentation introduces the research design of the project and offers some preliminary results from a case study on protests against a chemical plant in Southern Italy.
This research can tell us something about how these activists perceived the institutions they addressed. Did they see them as allies or did they see them as extensions of the very globalized capitalism they struggled against? And how responsive were these institutions to these grassroots grievances? This presentation introduces the research design of the project and offers some preliminary results from a case study on protests against a chemical plant in Southern Italy.
Bart-Jaap Verbeek, Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, And Sara Murawski, Transnational Institute
Disentangling the Legal Shackles for Just Energy Transition: The Struggle against the Energy Charter Treaty
Disentangling the Legal Shackles for Just Energy Transition: The Struggle against the Energy Charter Treaty
To prevent dangerous climate change, governments must rapidly boost clean energy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. Necessary climate action will inevitably impact the profitability, and even the viability, of carbon-intensive investments, and possibly create trillions of dollars in ‘stranded assets’. Transnational legal rules and institutions, such as the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), provide foreign investors with extensive protections against government action that negatively affects their investments, including climate measures. Energy companies have frequently used the ECT’s dispute settlement mechanism to directly sue governments outside their national courts and claim financial compensation before private arbitration tribunals. This can have far-reaching repercussions for the ways in which the costs and risks of the energy transition will be divided. Additionally, this form of investment protection threatens ambitious climate policy measures taken by governments and reinforces global patterns of extractivism.
Over the past few years, NGOs, trade unions and climate activists in Europe have successfully campaigned against the ECT for empowering fossil fuel companies to obstruct necessary climate action. Despite efforts to ‘modernize’ the treaty, various European governments, among others the Netherlands, France, Germany and Spain, are now announcing their intentions to withdraw from the ECT for not being in line with international climate goals. This presentation will examine the struggle against the ECT in Europe as a fruitful arena for resistance against transnational legal rules and institutions aimed at protecting the interests of transnational capital and undermining efforts towards just energy transition. Particularly, we will identify the main social forces and agents behind the campaign on both the national and international level, how the campaign was set up and benefited from previously existing networks, how the campaign successfully established cross-linkages between trade justice organizations, trade unions and climate activists, and what discursive tactics and practices were used. We will also reflect on the implications of the successes and lessons learned of the campaign for the broader struggle in favor of transitioning towards a more sustainable economic system.
Over the past few years, NGOs, trade unions and climate activists in Europe have successfully campaigned against the ECT for empowering fossil fuel companies to obstruct necessary climate action. Despite efforts to ‘modernize’ the treaty, various European governments, among others the Netherlands, France, Germany and Spain, are now announcing their intentions to withdraw from the ECT for not being in line with international climate goals. This presentation will examine the struggle against the ECT in Europe as a fruitful arena for resistance against transnational legal rules and institutions aimed at protecting the interests of transnational capital and undermining efforts towards just energy transition. Particularly, we will identify the main social forces and agents behind the campaign on both the national and international level, how the campaign was set up and benefited from previously existing networks, how the campaign successfully established cross-linkages between trade justice organizations, trade unions and climate activists, and what discursive tactics and practices were used. We will also reflect on the implications of the successes and lessons learned of the campaign for the broader struggle in favor of transitioning towards a more sustainable economic system.
Discussant: Laura Burgers, University of Amsterdam
Contact
changingbusinessesforgood@gmail.com
Organisers
Peter van Dam, Paul Raekstad, Valerie Schreur and Gerrit Schaafsma
changingbusinessesforgood@gmail.com
Organisers
Peter van Dam, Paul Raekstad, Valerie Schreur and Gerrit Schaafsma
