From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: CENSORED: CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:15:09 GMT

CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN

It would seem that in these times of heightened environmental
consciousness, companies with questionable environmental track
records would be concerned with EPA regulations.  But it appears the
corporate sector is paying less attention to non-threatening
government regulators and instead adopting an array of tactics and at-
tack strategies aimed at environmental and citizen groups.

Some of the more recent anti-environmental innovations include
multi-million dollar SLAPP suits, the harassment and surveillance
(including electronic) of activists, the infiltration of
environmental groups by "agent provocateurs," and the creation of
dummy ecology groups to ferret out whistleblowers.  Another disturbing
trend is the proliferation of groups such as "The Oregon Committee for
Recycling," an industry front group whose purpose was to lobby against a
recycling initiative on the state ballot.  Or "Californians for Food
Safety," which was created by the Western Agricultural Chemical
Association, producers of pesticides, who successfully opposed the
state's Big Green proposition in 1990.

Perhaps the greatest coup was pulled off by Arkansas' Vertac Inc., a
superfund polluter, whose "Jacksonville People With Pride Cleanup
Coalition" successfully applied for EPA money--until they were exposed
by suspicious environmentalists.

This new corporate mind-set may be best exemplified, however, by a copy
of a "Crisis Management Plan" commissioned by the Clorox Corp., which
was recently leaked to Greenpeace.  The plan was prepared by Ketchum
Communications, one of the nation's largest advertising and public
relations firms.  While Greenpeace has an international program aimed
at abolishing the use of chlorine in the pulp and paper industry, they
have not called for a ban on domestic use of bleach.  However, the
Ketchum plan was apparently prompted by fears that Greenpeace would
eventually target household use of bleach and call for its elimination.

Part of the Ketchum strategy to counteract the chlorine industry's poor
reputation was to outline "worst case scenarios."  Among its many
strategies, Ketchum suggests ways to discredit the findings of studies
linking chlorine use to cancer, should the findings ever become
public.  The firm also recommends that Clorox "cast doubts on the
methodology and findings," of potentially damaging scientific reports
which haven't even been written yet.

Ketchum also recommends labeling Greenpeace as violent self-serving
"eco-terrorists;" attempting to sue newspaper columnists who advocate
the use of non-toxic bleaches and cleaners for the home; "immu-
nizing" government officials; dispatching "independent" scientists on
media tours; and recruiting "scientific ambassadors" to tout the
Clorox cause and call for further study.

(SSU CENSORED RESEARCHER:  ROBYN O'CONNOR AND DANNY BREMSON)

SOURCE:E MAGAZINE,Nov./Dec.1991 P.O.  Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881

TlTLE:"Stop the Greens"

AUTHOR:Eve Pell

SOURCE:  GREENPEACE NEWS, 1436 U St., NW, Washington, DC,20009

DATE:  5/10/31

TITLE:  "Clorox Company's Public Relations 'Crisis Management Plan'

COMMENTS:  Investigative journalist Eve Pell noted that while business
efforts to comply with environmental regulations and to market
"green" products have received a lot of coverage, "no one in the major
mass media, to our knowledge, has reported that, nationwide, American
corporations are retaliating against the environmental movement with a
wide assortment of dirty tricks.  Not only was there inadequate cover-
age in the mainstream press, there was no coverage of this topic at
all."

Wider coverage of this issue would let consumers and voters know that
some of the businesses that purport to protect ancient forests and
furry animals are engaged in efforts to mislead the public and undermine
the work of environmental activists, Pell added.  "They would understand
why corporate environmental image-building campaigns -- like Chevron's
'People Do' series about the oil company's alleged construction of
dens for kit foxes -- are all too often deceptive and fraudulent.  As
informed citizens, they would more accurately evaluate issues that
come before them, which could include whether to buy or to boycott
certain products, to vote for or against legislative proposals and
candidates, or to support environmental organizations."

"Perhaps most important," Pell noted, "the public would be less easily
taken in by industry efforts to mislead.  They might view with more
skepticism such groups as the deceptively named Oregon Committee for
Recycling, an industry front group that actually opposed a recycling
initiative in that state."

Pell suggests that the corporations and industries that buy the good
opinion of the American public with image-building advertising are the
ones that benefit most from the limited coverage given this issue.
"If lawmakers, regulators and consumers do not know that certain
companies are out to undermine the work of environmental groups, those
companies may appear to be good corporate citizens and therefore less
likely to be questioned or criticized.  "

Pell concludes that the national news media have not dealt adequately
with the extent and depth of the corporate anti-environmental cam-
paign.

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive