corporatehumanitarianism

[corporatehumanitarianism]

Introduction

In a day and age where corporations have so much power, their impact is profound. When considering human rights, it’s important that corporations support humanitarianism; unfortunately, this is not always the case. Profit defines corporations. Consequently, business decisions are not always pro-human rights. Most of the time, businesses incorporate human rights ideals in their marketing campaigns when it is profitable, even if they have aided in the destruction of human rights beforehand. This phenomenon exemplifies greenwashing. Birthed in the 1980s, greenwashing explained Chevron’s “People Do” marketing campaign, showcasing Chevron employees protecting all kinds of animals. Establishing the term “greenwashing,” environmentalists immediately noticed the company’s attempts to cover their problematic environmental record by presenting themselves as environmentally friendly. Profit-seeking corporations “greenwash” when it is economically beneficial for them, attempting to mask previous human rights violations.

Works Cited

USCIB. Engaging Business Forum on Business and Human Rights. Atlanta, Georgia. United States Council for International Business, www.uscib.org/event/coca-cola-engaging-business-forum/. Accessed 25 Nov. 2019.

Watson, Bruce. “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing.” The Guardian, 20 Aug. 2016, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/20/greenwashing-environmentalism-lies-companies. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

[corporatehumanitarianism]

The Role of Airline Companies in Global Warming

Fig. 1. United Airlines’ “Eco-Skies” Campaign.

“Eco-friendly” airline companies embody greenwashing. Following recent strides for protection against global warming, airline companies greenwashed by altering their emissions to reflect popular green policies; they reacted to anti-global warming advancements articulated through the Paris Climate Agreement. With over 200 countries involved, the agreement acted as a global action plan to combat the exponentially-increasing, detrimental effects of global warming; recently, President Donald Trump announced plans to leave the necessary global plan. The agreement aims to keep the world from warming above two degrees Celsius and if possible, below one and a half degrees Celsius. Fearing public backlash and the resultant loss of profit, airline companies have incorporated changes to reduce emissions.

When it comes to money, “eco-friendly” airline companies violate human rights by disregarding environmentalism. In a news release, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) detailed greenwashing among airline companies and highlighted letters sent to the CEOs of those companies by six environmental groups. Specifically, the groups called out the companies for attempting to stop anti-pollution plans—resulting in monetary loss for the airline companies—after bragging about their eco-friendly practices. For example, American Airlines published an article titled “AA Reduces Environmental Footprint,” and United launched its “Eco-Skies” marketing campaign detailing their newfound environmental friendliness (see fig. 1). By avoiding financial responsibility, the airline companies reveal their true goal—maximizing profit regardless of environmentalism. Furthermore, the disregard for global concern is in direct violation of article 3 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” By showcasing a lack of concern for environmental issues, the airline companies accelerate the effects of global warming, directly infringing upon humanity’s right to life and safety.

Works Cited

Denis, Brady. “Trump makes it official: U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.” The Washington Post, 4 Nov. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/04/trump-makes-it-official-us-will-withdraw-paris-climate-accord/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

“Environmental Groups Highlight ‘Greenwashing’ by American, United, Continental Airlines.” Environmental Defense Fund, 11 May 2011, www.edf.org/news/environmental-groups-highlight-greenwashing-american-united-continental-airlines. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

UN General Assembly. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, 217 (III) A, 1948, Paris, art. 3, www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed 25 Nov. 2019.

“United - Eco-Skies - LAX Biofuel Initiative Inaugural Event.” Youtube, uploaded by United, 23 May 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUWkxZh42bQ. Accessed 25 Nov. 2019.

[corporatehumanitarianism]

Jumping on the Bandwagon: Gay Pride

Fig. 2. Rainbow-Washed Brand Logos.

Corporations’ Pride Month-centered marketing campaigns manifest the foundations behind greenwashing; in the past, these same companies have made anti-LGBTQIA+ business decisions. Last June of 2019, the LGBTQIA+ community came together to annually celebrate the advancements in securing gay rights by remembering and protesting the continued oppression of LGBTQIA+ persons around the world. For the first time en masse, companies proclaimed their support and solidarity for the LGBTQIA+ community by showering their logos with the rainbow colors (see fig. 2). These marketing campaigns were not genuine and embodied classic greenwashing. These actions coined the topic-appropriate term “rainbow-washing,” birthed from “pink-washing”; the latter was the byproduct of Israel’s 2005 inclusive marketing campaign, depicting the country as a gay-friendly tourist destination. However, many saw the campaign as an attempt to avert attention from the controversial treatment of Palestinians. Similar to the Israel scandal, other companies branded themselves as gay-friendly to “atone” for past mistakes. Victoria’s Secret announced their new Pride Month logo, even though the company stated before that a transgender model would not sell the “fantasy.” Also, companies such as AT&T and UPS—some of the biggest, most pro-LGBTQIA+ corporations—donated about one million dollars each to anti-gay politicians. These actions are in direct violation of human rights and detrimental to the LGBTQIA+ community, constantly fighting for their rights in equality and equity.

Works Cited

Byrne, Ryan. “Rainbow-Washing is Hurting Your Brand.” The Medium, 5 Jul. 2019, www.medium.com/smart-marketing-for-the-lean-startup/rainbow-washing-is-hurting-your-brand-f7e436fea7a6. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

Dahl, Stephan. “The rise of pride marketing and the curse of ‘pink washing.’” The Conversation, 26 Aug. 2014, www.theconversation.com/the-rise-of-pride-marketing-and-the-curse-of-pink-washing-30925. Accessed 25 Nov. 2019.

Ennis, Dawn. “Don't Let That Rainbow Logo Fool You: These 9 Corporations Donated Millions To Anti-Gay Politicians.” Forbes, 24 Jun. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/24/dont-let-that-rainbow-logo-fool-you-these-corporations-donated-millions-to-anti-gay-politicians/#5331d83d14a6. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

Phelps, Nicole. “‘We’re Nobody’s Third Love, We’re Their First Love’—The Architects of the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show Are Still Banking on Bombshells.” Vogue Magazine, 8 Nov. 2018, www.vogue.com/article/victorias-secret-ed-razek-monica-mitro-interview. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

[corporatehumanitarianism]

Banks Conveniently Stop Funding Detention Centers

Fig. 3. Bank of America Cuts Ties with Detention Centers.

Banks’ abrupt end to funding detention centers illustrates the ideals behind greenwashing. By reacting to public outrage on recent immigration policies, banks increased approval ratings and in turn, their profit. Specifically, Bank of America was the last to end its funding to detention centers. The company admits they cut funding to avoid financial risk and the pressure from activism (see fig. 3); these corporations do not care about ethical business decisions—instead, they make profit-based decisions. The banks’ actions epitomize greenwashing; they showcase their collective violation of human rights by supporting the imprisonment and maltreatment of immigrants at the detention centers.

Works Cited

“Bank of America Cuts Ties With Companies Running Immigration Detention Centers.” YouTube, uploaded by Wochit Business, 28 Jun. 2019, youtube.com/watch?v=ah-XCOJxLa8. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.

[corporatehumanitarianism]

The United Nation’s Business & Human Rights Initiative

Zooming out, in 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council funded and approved the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework”; in addition to providing guidelines for humanitarian business practices, this initiative details corporate human rights violations. For example, companies have profiteered from selling arms and weaponized products to militarized governments around the world. Knowingly selling weapons of mass destruction to questionable governments confirms the irrelevance of ethics in these businesses. Furthermore, according to the Business & Human Rights Resource Center, beer companies hire women in Cambodia to promote their products in bars but offer insufficient protection for these women from rape and abuse. Similarly, the ever-growing, unlawful business of human trafficking demonstrates sexual contraventions in business; after all, the ultimate violation of human rights lies in the objectification of human beings for profit. Overall, the initiative serves to align human rights and business by ensuring corporations participate in humanitarian and eco-friendly business practices. More importantly, the initiative offers genuine efforts in promoting human rights without greenwashing. It is important that corporations make human rights-based decisions given the amount of monetary power they have and the effect they have on the world we live in.

Works Cited

“Business & Human Rights - A Brief Introduction.” Business & Human Rights Resource Center, www.business-humanrights.org/en/business-human-rights-a-brief-introduction. Accessed 19 Nov. 2019.