Distribution Network
Content
The head of one of the world’s most influential pressure groups has declared that he now recognizes the worth of corporate responsibility.
Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International, told last month’s annual Business for Social Responsibility conference in San Francisco that in the past couple of years he has discovered, ‘to my surprise, that CSR actually can make a difference and has a subversive side’.
Leipold told the 1300 delegates that his view of CSR as ‘the friendly face of greedy corporations’ had changed as his work for the pressure group brought him into close contact with company executives.
Many prominent pressure groups, including War on Want and Christian Aid, remain sceptical of CSR, but Leipold said Greenpeace, which has offices in 41 countries, 2.8 million members and an annual budget of $250m (£125m), no longer held that view. ‘I basically felt corporate responsibility was a contradiction in terms but I don’t believe that any more. Why? Because it has moved up the corporate ladder and because businesses are beginning to talk the same language as us. When you are in an activist organization such as mine it is easy to believe you are the only committed people, but in moments of honest reflection I have to accept that is not the case, and that company executives don’t have the same luxury of freedom of speech.’
Leipold said that he had changed his mind partly because a number of companies had responded positively to Greenpeace campaigns. He singled out McDonald’s for its work with the pressure group to persuade large animal feed suppliers such as Cargill and ADM to suspend the purchase of soy grown in deforested areas of the Amazon. Greenpeace had expected hostility but found key individuals in McDonald’s willing to work with the organization.
‘We were also very pleasantly surprised that the grain companies became involved. None of the participants feel they have been defeated and there is a sense that we have all won.’
Leipold stressed that working directly with companies ‘is not a model of how every non-governmental organization should operate’, but it ‘is important they understand how the power of companies can be used to very good effect’ by working through the relevant departments.
‘On the soy issue it took a few people within the company to stick their necks out. It’s a wonderful illustration that CSR professionals can make a huge difference even if they have only limited power. McDonald’s had a set of principles that said they would not walk away from a problem which they have in part created, and they followed their principles.’
Leipold warned however that CSR practitioners should not ‘expect to be rewarded immediately or liked by all your colleagues, or acknowledged by critics of your company’.
Greenpeace would remain a ‘fiercely independent’ pressure group and would continue to decline money from corporations, he added. A confrontational approach was still valid in many circumstances because it put pressure on companies to act.
Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International, told last month’s annual Business for Social Responsibility conference in San Francisco that in the past couple of years he has discovered, ‘to my surprise, that CSR actually can make a difference and has a subversive side’.
Leipold told the 1300 delegates that his view of CSR as ‘the friendly face of greedy corporations’ had changed as his work for the pressure group brought him into close contact with company executives.
Many prominent pressure groups, including War on Want and Christian Aid, remain sceptical of CSR, but Leipold said Greenpeace, which has offices in 41 countries, 2.8 million members and an annual budget of $250m (£125m), no longer held that view. ‘I basically felt corporate responsibility was a contradiction in terms but I don’t believe that any more. Why? Because it has moved up the corporate ladder and because businesses are beginning to talk the same language as us. When you are in an activist organization such as mine it is easy to believe you are the only committed people, but in moments of honest reflection I have to accept that is not the case, and that company executives don’t have the same luxury of freedom of speech.’
Leipold said that he had changed his mind partly because a number of companies had responded positively to Greenpeace campaigns. He singled out McDonald’s for its work with the pressure group to persuade large animal feed suppliers such as Cargill and ADM to suspend the purchase of soy grown in deforested areas of the Amazon. Greenpeace had expected hostility but found key individuals in McDonald’s willing to work with the organization.
‘We were also very pleasantly surprised that the grain companies became involved. None of the participants feel they have been defeated and there is a sense that we have all won.’
Leipold stressed that working directly with companies ‘is not a model of how every non-governmental organization should operate’, but it ‘is important they understand how the power of companies can be used to very good effect’ by working through the relevant departments.
‘On the soy issue it took a few people within the company to stick their necks out. It’s a wonderful illustration that CSR professionals can make a huge difference even if they have only limited power. McDonald’s had a set of principles that said they would not walk away from a problem which they have in part created, and they followed their principles.’
Leipold warned however that CSR practitioners should not ‘expect to be rewarded immediately or liked by all your colleagues, or acknowledged by critics of your company’.
Greenpeace would remain a ‘fiercely independent’ pressure group and would continue to decline money from corporations, he added. A confrontational approach was still valid in many circumstances because it put pressure on companies to act.
Super Featured
No
Featured
No