From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:49:41 GMT

[From misc.activism.progressive]

    "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 [..]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    "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.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    "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.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 910       CENSORED: CORPORATE AMERICA'S ANTI- 
rich    misc.activism.progressive        1:15 am  Nov  6, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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: alt.activism