The author of Guns, Germs and Steel, geography professor Jared Diamond has a New York Times op-ed stating his recent softening of attitude toward big business and their role in environmental salvation. He confesses to a former dislike of big business’ environmental destruction and greed but describes his change toward a more “nuanced feeling”. This feeling came about from serving alongside many business executives on the board of the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International. Diamond’s top three corporate picks that have seen the light are Wal-Mart, Chevron and Coca-Cola. These businesses are, he says among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability. He must see them as a sort of positive Guns, Germs and Steel of the enlightened corporate crowd.
I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability. The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.
Few would argue that avoiding oil spills isn’t good and lower consumption doesn’t save money but that has long been the case. No nuance here at all, it has gotten so bad that even Wal-Mart, Chevron and Coca-Cola see the writing on the wall.
Look at what Coca-Cola is doing as one of Diamond’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.
First off Coca-Cola gave $20 million to the World Wildlife Fund in 2007 and entered into a long-term funding partnership with them in 2008. Diamond notes correctly that Coke’s main ingredient is water.
Global climate change is making water scarcer, especially in the densely populated temperate-zone countries, like the United States, that are Coca-Cola’s main customers. Most competing water use around the world is for agriculture, which presents sustainability problems of its own. Hence Coca-Cola’s survival compels it to be deeply concerned with problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture.
Making its plants water use “neutral” by replenishing to the environment water in quantities equal to the amount used to make soda.
About water offsets from Guardian UK. Coke is not promising to be water neutral wherever it operates – which is bad news for the Indian villages that have been complaining that Coca Cola bottling plants are emptying their wells. Instead, it will "replenish" that water somewhere else.
How is not so clear. One route will be by funding WWF to protect watersheds round the globe.
All so they can continue to make and sell sugar water worldwide. Is the continued existence of Coca Cola Corporation so vital to the earth that we need to laud them for stage managing their own survival?
250-1
75-1
