25/12/22 07:53 p.m.
Background
I always feel that there is only so much we can do with talking, discussing, and protesting. Talking and voicing our concerns are only the bare minimum of what we can all do. While these other stakeholders are extremely important as well, we would most require actions to be taken on the corporate/government front and solutions to be piloted and further improved on. Our industries cannot settle for anything less environmental-friendly-optimal. While we start widening the definition of sustainability to start acknowledging the need to regenerate and restore.
Introduction
The pros and cons
of abiding by customer revolt include the following:
|
Pros |
Cons |
|
Creating a reputation that is
aligned and representative with the customers’ soft preferences and values. |
Company’s operations may not be able
to live up to the public commitments, without incurring significant and
sometimes unnecessary costs. |
|
Strengthening the relationship
between the customers and the company improves the retention rate of
customers (Hyken, 2017). |
Customer revolts may not provide the
complete or big picture of what the environmental issue entails, which leads
to an often skewed and extreme push for revolution, which might undermine the
root issues and provide unrealistic expectations of corporates, making things
worse based on the actual realities if companies abide by them. |
|
PR crisis management for such
customer revolts would prompt more support and show sincerity and genuity
when there are substantial follow-up actions. |
Being highly responsive to
public-facing revolts might reduce investors’ confidence in terms of crisis
management, showing weakness and vulnerability of the stability of the management
team. |
We discussed the
Jamba case in class which very effectively showed that sometimes public outcry
can be made and done without much scientific backings, with cherry-picking of
information and disclaims. Though an emotive and thought-provoking social
debate and argument started by the 10-year-old girl, decision-making from
Jamba’s end ought to have been hinged upon scientific research and holistic
inputs from stakeholders.
Another example
would be the infamous Brent Spar, which is arguably the tipping point and
reformative point in creating today’s climate activism. Brent Spar is a
floating oil storage in the North Sea, whose end-of-life management made
worldwide headlines. Shell, the co-owner and operator, then initially decided to
go ahead with deep-water disposal – by submerging the rig to the deep water 150
miles from Western Scotland, deconstructing it with the use of explosives to
sink it, along with remaining oil, sludges, and waste products in its tanks.
This caught the attention of Greenpeace International which made a public
outcry and campaign against Shell doing so, this led to a first-ever consumer
boycott of Shell, bringing about a 20% fall in sales and a demonstration in one
of Shell’s service stations. Such public revolt really challenged Shell and
Shell ended up halting the proposed disposal method and sought for an
alternative solution. Turns out, Greenpeace’s stance was plagued with
misinformation, reducing its legitimacy towards the issue. Scientific studies
and analysis done up during the period concluded that deep-water disposal is
the most preferred environmental option, especially when placed side-by-side
with other criterions including technical feasibility, cost, and safety.
Greenpeace also insisted that Brent Spar will be sunk with 5,500 tonnes of
remaining oil onboard, and the figure turned out to be inaccurate, with only
10-100 tonnes instead. In hindsight, Shell could have stuck to its position
firmly, using science, and only science at the heart of environmental
decision-making. However, they were completely unrooted and swayed by the
public. Being under global limelight gave them the visibility and immense
external stakeholder pressure. Even though the UK government was ever
supportive with Shell’s proposed method of disposal, it was not the case for
other governments, which highlighted the difficulty in aligning with the
broader global stakeholders and buy-in from consumers worldwide. Shell changed
its plans and dismantled Brent Spar on land, deciding to reuse some of the
parts of Brent Spar in the construction of a new Norwegian ferry quay. It is
still controversial whether the alternative, and chosen option is actually more
environmentally worse than the original plan, but Greenpeace was never
accountable or responsibility for the extra cost.
Despite all that
comes, what matters most is what is truly the impact and hence, what is best
for the environment. Only science can show and prove what is best
quantitatively and though subjected to the nuances of the qualitative inputs of
the stakeholders, especially those who are directly related and relevant.
Decision-making cannot be swayed by those who are only seen (only) because they
are the loudest in the room.
“...a well-known conservationist and environmental activist
put it like this: "It's not the activists' job to find alternatives. Their
job is just to draw attention to the problems." That attitude is one of an
exercise of power without responsibility or accountability. Our society can ill
afford such an attitude if we are to preserve the benefits of activism while
finding viable ways forward in what remain challenging social, environmental
and economic times.” (Zammit-Lucia, 2013).
References
Zammit-Lucia, J. (2013, October 8). Environmental activism – power without accountability? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/environmental-activism-power-without-accountability
Reuters. (2010, May 5). Brent Spar: Battle that launched modern activism. https://www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/business-strategy/brent-spar-battle-launched-modern-activism
Rowell, A. (2015, February 3). Ghost of Brent Spar Haunts Shell. Oil Change International. https://priceofoil.org/2015/02/03/ghost-brent-spar-haunts-shell/
No comments:
Post a Comment