Last September, a group called the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (Ceres) proposed a 10 point list of environmental commitments for corporations. Soon it will invite 3,000 companies to sign up. In memory of the oil spill that occurred 1 year ago this week, Ceres calls its commitments the Valdez Principles.
Ceres-the acronym spells the name of the mythological Roman goddess of agriculture-has a tough recruitment challenge. The principles constitute a lawyer's nightmare of vague language and open-ended obligation in these areas: protection of the biosphere, sustainable use of natural resources, reduction and disposal of waste, wise use of energy, risk reduction, marketing of safe products and services, damage compensation, disclosure, environmental directors and managers, and assessment and annual audit. And Ceres is given to urgent rhetoric that no doubt repels cautious business leaders. "Today we are saying, 'No more Valdez!'" Ceres said when it released the Valdez Principles. "The public is fed up, and the earth can't take it any more!"
POWER OF PUBLIC OPINION
But Ceres knows how to use public opinion. Many people do believe that the planet faces imminent doom and that something must be done now, at any cost, to save it. So Ceres will force companies to choose between impossible environmental promises and certain public scorn. Until then, its members are meeting with companies and drafting a guide to what signing the Valdez Principles means.
Tactics and hyperbole aside, Ceres makes some valuable points. Chief among them is the overarching notion that company cultures, not just policies, must embrace new concern for ecological and human safety. Further, companies must demonstrate that concern with responsible behavior at all levels. There may be better ways to pursue those ideals than pledging allegiance to the Valdez Principles. But companies must change something. A year of intensifying popular outrage and continued mishap makes that painfully clear. It's a good time for self-assessment.
What steps have companies taken to meld environmental and safety goals with employee behavior? Are responsibilities in these areas tied to compensation? Is monitoring thorough and vigorous? Who leads the effort-chief executives or their delegates?
What further initiatives, such as reformulated gasoline and voluntary toxic emission reductions, can oil companies undertake to improve the environment? What new alliances, such as the clean air research effort with automakers, can be formed to promote environmental innovation?
What have companies done to move environmental discussions beyond the level of confrontational stalemate? How many companies have studied the Valdez Principles and at least discussed them with Ceres representatives? How often do companies meet with other environmental groups? How many have environmental specialists as directors? By the same token, how have companies toughened their positions on issues where the environmentalist stance is scientifically unfounded or demonstrably harmful?
AGREEING ON AIMS
Companies can reduce irresponsible behavior-but not eliminate risk. They can promise to clean up their mistakes-but not to never make them. Their technical powers should apply not just to solving environmental problems but also to identifying problems with more basis in politics than science. The aim, after all, should be to make the planet cleaner and safer, not to recklessly frighten or impoverish its inhabitants. Companies and environmentalists should be able to agree on that. Or have they wasted a year?
Copyright 1990 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
