corporations

Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu "seems about as climate friendly as they come," writes Josh Harkinson, but "more industry friendly than his rhetoric suggests." As the director of the Energy Department-funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chu helped broker "the largest university-industry alliance in U.S. history, the $500 million Energy Biosciences Institute." The biofuels research institute involves the Berkeley lab, two public universities and oil giant BP. Chu pitched BP's deal to the UC-Berkeley Academic Senate, one-third of whose members voted against it. Chu also promoted the institute on campus, saying "money" was the only reason more biofuels research wasn't already underway. The university's compromise agreement gave BP half of the seats on the board governing the institute. As Energy Secretary, Chu will likely "face pressure to partner with corporations in pursuing technological solutions to climate change," notes Harkinson. "As the incoming Obama administration prepares to spend liberally to develop cleaner sources of energy, the structure of corporate-government partnerships will determine how the profits of that research return to taxpayers, and how rigorously scientists evaluate the downsides of controversial technologies such as biofuels."

"Consistent with Congress' intent, we are committed to transparency and oversight in all aspects of the program," said Neel Kashkari, the U.S. Department of Treasury's point man for the $700 billion bailout, back on October 13, 2008. But despite Treasury's promise back then that they would release the figure the government is paying the Bank of New York Mellon (BoNYM) to manage and distribute cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), they still have refused to make the information public. A current copy of BoNYM's contract with the government obtained by ProPublica, a public interest journalism group, still has the compensation figures blackened out, as they were two months ago, still keeping taxpayers in the dark about how much they are paying BoNYM to administer the program.

The economic downturn is hitting the pet industry, too. To compete in a crowded and shrinking market, Mars' dog food brand Pedigree will buy its first-ever Super Bowl ads. But, rather than directly advertising their dog food, Pedigree will promote dog adoptions. Pedigree executives are convinced that "the cause-marketing approach is the way to go." Branding executive Eli Portnoy agreed: "You can't trust your investment banker, you can't trust the government. But you can trust your dog." Pedigree marketing executive John Anton said, "More dogs are going to end up in shelters because of home foreclosures. ... Every time we run this campaign, we see increased sales." The cause-related angle has the added benefit of not reminding football enthusiasts of last year's pet food recalls. Pedigree, in particular, "voluntarily recalled dry dog food" as recently as this summer, "due to possible contamination with salmonella." The Pedigree ad will be designed by Omnicom ad firm TBWA/Chiat/Day.

There's a telling email exchange quoted in the Defense Department Inspector General's report (pdf) on America Supports You (ASY), a Pentagon program launched in 2004, ostensibly to boost troop morale.

Allison BarberAllison Barber, who founded and led ASY until her recent resignation as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Internal Communications and Public Liaison (and who infamously helped President Bush stage a teleconference with troops in Iraq), asked in a June 2004 email: "Overseas, we make troops [not living on military bases] buy a digital receiver for their televisions so they can see AFRTS," the American Forces Radio and Television Service. "Is there a way for me to make this situation know [sic] to corporate America and offer them the option of 'sponsoring' a receiver? So the receiver might have a sticker on it that says 'brought to you by Sears'."

An attorney with the Defense Department's Standards of Conduct Office responded sharply: "Of course, you may not solicit anyone, especially corporate America, to sponsor the receivers. That's a no-no."

Judging by the Inspector General's report -- which was 18 months in the making -- Allison Barber was responsible for quite a lot of "no-no's."

The "Corporate Water Footprinting" conference in San Francisco December 2 and 3 had a small public component: "a presentation by Nestle on assessing water-related risks in communities, Coca-Cola's aggressive environmental water-neutrality goal, and MillerCoors' plan to use less water to make more beer," reports Amanda Witherell. "But what these giant corporations, which are seeking to control more of the world's water, really discussed the public will never know. Only four media representatives were permitted to attend -- all from obscure trade journals." Witherell's San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Chronicle "were denied media passes." While corporate executives met in secret, social justice activists held a free, public "Anti-Corporate Water Conference." Witherell asked the organizer of the Corporate Water Footprinting conference why the water activists weren't welcome at his event. "Why didn't we invite them?" he responded. "I don't know."

Jesse Eisinger was one of the few financial reporters to sound an early warning about Wall Street's financial meltdown. In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, he explains that business reporters failed to see it coming because "the people who have gravitated to business journalism didn't get into journalism for the same reasons that people in political journalism tended to get into journalism. ... It's not necessarily fired by a sense that we should right society's wrongs. ... We lived in a period where the operating ethos was that business was efficient; that markets could solve our problems; that the imaginative people in our society was entrepreneurs, and it was very easy to be disdainful of government." Writing for the American Journalism Review, however, Chris Roush argues that the business media "have done yeoman's work during the past decade-plus to expose wrongdoing in corporate America."

At a December 2 "wonky event" on the "future of energy policy" sponsored by Third Way, there was a remarkably "wide range of groups represented around the table," writes Kate Sheppard. In addition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and several people with "close ties to the next administration," there were representatives from "renewable energy companies and industry groups, fossil-fuels industries, labor groups, big green groups, think tanks, and local government agencies." American Petroleum Institute president Jack Gerard argued, "As we make this transition to a ... more clean energy future, we hope people remember the important role of the basic fuels like oil and gas. ... We're significant players in terms of the innovation." Reid challenged Gerard's "innovation" claim -- "perhaps having heard that ExxonMobil ... only spent 1 percent of its massive 2007 profits on renewable energy," speculates Sheppard. Gerard countered, "British Petroleum is one of the key players in the solar sector, Chevron and others are big into wind, ExxonMobil spent a lot of time on battery development for electric cars."

On December 2 and 3 in San Francisco, "international business representatives will discuss their use of water." The $1900 conference -- titled "Corporate Water Footprinting" -- gives major corporations an opportunity to "announce their new efforts to promote 'water neutrality,' the claim that they can return to local aquifers every drop of water taken for business." Speakers at the conference include executives from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, MillerCoors and GE. Coca-Cola has already announced plans to become "the most efficient company in the world in terms of water use in the beverage industry," and eventually "water neutral." Yet some scientists question the very concept of water "neutrality." Jeff Conant of Food and Water Watch argues that the phrase is hypocritical marketing. "Multinational corporations like Coke and Nestle would like us to think that they are doing their best to protect our water," he writes, but "these corporations produce non-essential sugary products with the single-minded goal of generating profit. ... Currently, 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water," and "lack of clean drinking water leads to nearly 250 million cases of water-related disease each year and between 5 and 10 million deaths." In related news, Canadian environmental groups have filed a complaint against Nestle, saying the company's ads calling bottled water "the most environmentally responsible consumer product," among other "eco-friendly" claims, are misleading.

The Edelman PR firm recently conducted a survey to find out what keeps consumers loyal to a name brand in challenging economic times. They found that "the trick is to forge a 'double-value' for a product by developing a tie-in to a social cause." Cause-related marketing can be a powerful marketing technique. The environment, health, poverty and education were the top causes likely to inspire consumer loyalty. Companies offering what seems to be an added benefit to purchases are appealing to the emotions of the consumer. According to the survey, "only a quarter of consumers gain contentment while shopping. More than four-in-ten (42 percent) say helping others brings a sense of contentment." Unfortunately, it is often impossible for consumers to judge the actual impact that cause-related marketing creates since the amount donated or where it specifically goes is rarely disclosed.

The heads of the Big Three U.S. automakers (General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford), and the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) went to Capitol Hill to ask for a $25 billion bailout loan. But they didn't give enough thought to how they got there. Each man flew separately, on private corporate jets, to ask for help from U.S. taxpayers. Even industry-funded groups like Citizens Against Government Waste think the auto industry honchos are out of touch. "It appears that the senior management of the automakers simply don't get it," said Tom Schatz, CAGW President. Their cavalier attitude was roundly noted, and criticized. Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York chided them: "As CEOs of your companies, you should set the standard here of what the future looks like." GM's CEO Rick Wagoner's trip cost the company $20,000, compared to a first-class ticket for the same day that came in at less than $900. Wagoner also takes a corporate jet from Detroit to his home in Seattle each weekend. "This is a slap in the face of taxpayers," said Schatz. "To come to Washington on a corporate jet, and asking for a hand out is outrageous."