8.13.2010

Gem of the day

In the latest installment of Multinational Corporations Investigate My Op-Ed, our friend Ken Cohen at Exxon Mobil has weighed in with a response on Exxon's signature CSR blog, "Perspectives". Not surprisingly, he disagrees with some of the key points I make. Here's his top-line arguments, and my take on them:

  • "The oil and gas industry’s primary social responsibility is to provide affordable, reliable energy that is essential for human progress...How sustainable would our society be without it?" This is a weird question. Firstly, it's an inversion of the word 'sustainable'. Yes, literally, at the moment we would not be able to 'sustain' our way of life without oil and gas. But in the longer term, using oil and gas is, well, not sustainable--environmentally, economically or socially. Indeed, the primary social responsibility of the oil and gas industry is fundamentally different today than it was 50 years ago: given record profits, most of which go untaxed, the industry's responsibility--and opportunity--should be in radically scaling up renewable energy solutions to ensure sustainability and security of our future energy supply. What's more affordable and reliable than powering our lifestyles with the natural cycles of sunlight, air and water? Drilling deep into offshore waters using risky equipment which sometimes results in seismic crises?
  • "We realize that we should be assessed not only on our ability to bring our product to market to meet these growing needs, but also on the manner in which we do so...ExxonMobil has a strong track record to share" Indeed, it's true that ExxonMobil has a better safety and risk management record--since Valdez--than any of its competitors. But this doesn't make up for the extraordinary environmental impact of the oil Exxon produces--from the volume of emissions to the implications for biodiversity, managing the basic safety risks posed by oil is hardly something to champion. It'd be like giving an award to Mattel for making sure its barbie dolls don't have mercury in them.
  • "To suggest that oil companies can’t operate responsibly – when the energy we produce underpins nearly every aspect of people’s lives and economies – is both incorrect and not a constructive way to advance the debate." Unintentionally ironic. Exxon Mobil wants to talk about a 'constructive way to advance the debate' after funding climate skepticism more than any other company in its industry for a decade? Furthermore, the logic of this argument is flawed. There's no link between operating responsibly and simply having a core product which underpins everyday life--in fact, what BP shows us, and what Exxon showed us in the '80s, is that a multinational corporation of that scale can quite easily operate with little respect for basic compliance measures--that is, irresponsibly--while offering a product which underpins everyday life.
I'm eager to continue this debate. It's a critically important one. But a debate is just a debate unless resources are brought to the table. I'm waiting to see them.

No comments:

Post a Comment