The theme for this year's Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) conference in San Francisco last week was "redefining leadership." I have no qualm with that, for when I realized that Chevron was not only a major sponsor but a featured speaker on a panel about "community engagement," I agreed. Indeed, that is a new definition of leadership – appallingly bad leadership.
Inviting the oil company that was found guilty of deliberately dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the pristine Ecuadorian Amazon – poisoning over 30,000 people who live there – to lead a session on community engagement is like asking the Taliban to chair a conference on women's rights. Is this really the message that BSR wants to send to its members?
We are confronted by hypocrisy every day, and yet somehow there's a fundamental disconnect here that defies explanation. The jury is no longer out. Chevron has lost an 18-year legal battle, been found guilty and fined $18 billion in a venue of its own choice. Because they refuse to accept responsibility and pay for a clean-up, Chevron is now the "poster-child" for corporate irresponsibility. Adding insult to injury (and these are not metaphorical injuries), Chevron filed a RICO suit against the plaintiffs earlier this year accusing them of extortion. That case was eventually laughed out of court, but Chevron's strategy remains the same: delay, disrupt and deny. Is this a new definition of leadership? I'd call it the same tired tactics on which corporate criminals spend millions each year.
How does Chevron go from such infamy to sharing the stage with Aron Cramer, President and CEO of BSR (and on the 18th anniversary of the launch of the epic lawsuit against Chevron, no less)? During the panel, Chevron spokesperson Rhonda Zygocki, VP of Policy and Planning, actually said that there's no longer a CSR Department at Chevron because corporate responsibility is integrated into every aspect of the company's operations. Why would they need a department to evaluate how they treat communities and the environment, since everybody at Chevron so completely loves community and the environment? That would be silly. Mr. Cramer, who according to the BSR site is, "recognized globally as an authority on corporate responsibility by leaders in business and NGOs and by his peers in the field," did not question this position. It certainly seems like a colossal step backward to us. On the other hand, eliminating the CSR department at Chevron may be the first honest thing they have done in a long while.
Zygocki went on to tell the room that "values-driven leadership is visible… values have to be overt." This is from a woman who has sat, face to face with Cofán leader Emergildo Criollo, a man who lost two children to Chevron's toxic mess in Ecuador and blamed another company for pollution she knows her company created. Chevron's "values" have led them to try every dirty trick in the book to avoid responsibility, and now, after years of legal battles, when the decision has finally been made, they vow never to pay to clean up the mess they made, pledging instead to "fight it out until hell freezes over, and then fight it out on the ice." How dare they speak of values?
One value that Chevron does understand, however, is the value of an ad campaign. The recent "We Agree" PR blitz is actually an example of hollow leadership. Like the concept of corporate social responsibility, Chevron can vaguely "agree" that "oil companies should care" without ever actually doing anything to back that up. Greenwashing like this deserves its own panel at a BSR conference, but certainly not as an example of leadership. In fact, Mr. Cramer should dedicate an entire day at next year's conference to examining the brutal reality of Chevron's "community engagement." Amazon Watch, and many other organizations working with communities in Angola, Ecuador, Nigeria, Indonesia, the tar sands of Canada, Alaska, Texas, and even Richmond, California would be eager to contribute. Instead, by touting Chevron as a responsible business leader, BSR's commitment to its own mission must be questioned.
Hypothetically, what would it mean if Chevron accepted its responsibility for the worst oil-related disaster on Earth? If they paid for a full-scale clean-up and helped to heal the sick and dying communities in Ecuador? That type of leadership would not only be responsible but revolutionary. It would send shock waves through every major industry and cement Chevron in place as a true leader in corporate social responsibility. How to make this thought experiment become a reality is what BSR should be examining – the "Business of a Better World."
A true advocate for corporate social responsibility would join the growing wave of voices telling Chevron that enough is enough. That there will be no bold "new leadership" if corporations can't accept their role in egregious violations such as the case in Ecuador. Chevron is a criminal – an unrepentant recidivist – not a leader.
Follow Paul Paz y Miño on Twitter: www.twitter.com/paulpaz
Han Shan: Will the New CEO of Oil Giant Chevron Listen to the People of Ecuador? (VIDEO)
Rev. Seamus P. Finn, OMI: When Times Are Tough, True Leaders Emerge
Thomas P. DiNapoli: What Chevron Owes the People of Lago Agrio
ChevronToxico | The Campaign for Justice in Ecuador
Feud escalates between Chevron, Ecuador lawyers | Reuters
Chevron Ecuador Injunction Thrown Out - WSJ.com
Chevron Ordered to Pay $9 Billion for Ecuador Pollution - NYTimes ...
This is Justin with Chevron and I’d like to bring a few important, yet omitted, points on the Ecuador matter to the attention of Huffington Post readers. The facts are indisputable: The judgment rendered against Chevron in Ecuador is illegitimate, as the case has been irreparably marred by the fraud and misconduct of the plaintiffs’ lawyers and groups like Amazon Watch. The plaintiffs’ lawyers and organizations like Paul Paz y Mino’s have, for years, advanced this fraud against Chevron, which has included fabricating expert reports, manufacturing evidence, bribery, and colluding with court officials and ghostwriting part or all of the verdict.
Eight U.S. federal courts have reviewed evidence and have found that the trial has been compromised by the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ fraud. For example, Federal Magistrate Judge, Dennis Howell said that “while this court is unfamiliar with the practices of the Ecuadorian judicial system, the court must believe that the concept of fraud is universal and that what has blatantly occurred in this matter would in fact be considered fraud by any court.”
Pursuing a case devoid of merit, the plaintiffs’ representatives have instead turned to a campaign of pressure and misinformation. This campaign includes directly funding the work of groups like Amazon Watch. In fact, Amazon Watch has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
After compiling extensive evidence of misconduct, Chevron filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit against the plaintiffs' lawyers and representatives. Amazon Watch was named as co-conspirator in the filing.
Amazon Watch’s complicity in a furtherance of fraud is irrefutable. In this outtake from the movie Crude, plaintiffs' lead U.S. lawyer Steve Donziger and Atossa Soltani (Founder and Director of Amazon Watch and Paul’s boss) discuss hiring a private army to watch over the Ecuadorian court. Soltani becomes uncomfortable, and asks if "anybody can ... subpoena these videos?" Soltani then states to Donziger, "It's illegal to conspire to break the law."
The clips can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/texacoecuador#p/c/640238B9CA003487/4/_aQnqVDvDw0 and: http://www.youtube.com/texacoecuador#p/c/640238B9CA003487/5/eENfQZMHSyA
Chevron recognizes that the people of Ecuador face real challenges, but using Ecuador’s courts to advance a fraud is simply wrong. The truth matters and we encourage you to learn more. For a more detailed account of Chevron’s position on the lawsuit, please visit: www.theamazonpost.com.
Even worse? You can't get or refine oil on your rooftop but solar? Why the hell would they be allowed to kill wilderness for the same stuff we crank out right where it is needed, at a far lower price and with far more environmental and economic benefits? Then they get John Bryson a gigantic check, who then gets NRDC to gush and gabble about their horrible projects and all the gullible people buy in and defend Chevron.
Big Energy is the problem. They will never be the solution.
That being said Texaco and the Ecuadorian government were equally guilty of the crimes against the native indigenous groups, such as the Cofan, Siona-Secoya, Shuar-Jivaro, and Huaorani.
In their defense Chevron bought Texaco in late 2000 long after an agreement had been signed with the Ecuadorian government!
To Paint Chevron as Texaco is at best misleading but I believe it to be a purposeful lie!
Funny the bill just 10 years ago was $5 billion now's it's $18 billion nothing inspires inflation more than a lawsuit!
Hey, corps want to be human persons.
If you or I did these things...
What would our punishment be?