A recent opinion column, titled “The Multinationals’ Dilemma — Gratify the Greens or Protect the Poor?” and written by [...]]]> A government that does an end-run around the spirit of its own laws? And by exploiting green activists in the process? Impossible, you say? Then perhaps you believe that there was no gambling a Rick’s Café Americain?

A recent opinion column, titled “The Multinationals’ Dilemma — Gratify the Greens or Protect the Poor?” and written by James M. Roberts of The Heritage Foundation, made these very assertions, but without the tongue-in-cheek suggestion of disbelief. In his article, Mr. Roberts discusses many different issues, perhaps too many for the space allotted him, the foremost of which is the issue of how multinational corporations may actually damage economic progress when they acquiesce to the protest demands of various activist groups. This is a complicated and controversial issue, one which I have often discussed on this blog. But, this issue is not the topic of today’s post.

Rather, the topic of today’s posts is one of the minor issues as raised by Mr. Roberts in his opinion article. That issue is the financing of activist groups by governments and the reason for such financing. I previously dealt with this topic in my April 2010 post “Nice Work . . . If You Can Get It? Friends of the Earth Does.”

In that post, I noted that in 2008 Friends of the Earth Europe received over 50% of its annual income from a European government grant. Of their €1.5 million budget for that year, Friends of the Earth Europe received €790,000 in the form of a grant from the Directorate General Environmental, the environmental commission of the European government. (Figures per the International Policy Network (IPN). Please see my previous post for full citation.) As I said in the title of that previous post, nice work if you can get it, eh? For sure. But what’s even more interesting is the reason for the awarding of such financing.

There’s much doubt that the EU would admit this reason, but as it seemed to Mr. Roberts in his opinion article, and as it would seem to me here, one of the reasons for such environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO) support might be to help protect the European vegetable oil industry. In taking this approach to protectionist measures, the European government may be able to achieve a degree of protectionism without having to pass extremely controversial and potentially politically repercussive protectionist legislation.

Vegetable oils and palm oils are competing ingredients in many prepared foods. Friends of the Earth Europe, along with several other ENGOs, are currently conducting anti-corporate campaigns against various multi-national corporations (MNCs) in order to persuade those MNCs to change their purchases of palm oil from various southeast Asian producers of that product. (For more about these types of anti-palm oil campaigns, please see my posts concerning “The Kit Kat Incident.”)

Friends of the Earth Europe, the recipient of the large European government grant as referenced above, is one of the ENGOs engaged in a campaign against the usage of Asian palm oil. Then, perhaps it is only coincidental that the European vegetable oil industry is concerned with “competition from Third World oil-producing nations, and unfair commercial practices.”

Only coincidental? I think not. After all, there was gambling at Rick’s Café Americain, though the prefect of police was “outraged” upon discovering such even as he pocketed his winnings.

I agree with Mr. Roberts’ suggestion that the European government is doing an end-run around protectionist legislation, but still attaining the desired effect. The information concerning the European government’s grant to Friends of the Earth Europe is convincing and especially so given that the European vegetable oil industry has cited concerns about unfair competition from Third World food oil producers. The government’s support of ENGO anti-corporate campaigns aimed at discouraging European import of Asian palm oil, through the public relations demonization of MNCs using Asian palm oil as an ingredient in their food products, can still have the desired outcome of an outright legal ban or import quota upon palm oil. And all without the political flap against a “protectionist” European government. Very neat and tidy.

I wonder if Friends of the Earth Europe knows that they are being “played?” And if so, do you think they would even care?

Share on Facebook

Generally, and descriptively, it’s called clicktivism. But its critics called [...]]]> Clicktivism, or slacktivism as some call it, is a significant phenomenon affecting irregular competition. What is it? Well, briefly, this newest “ism” refers to the act of people taking part in protest via the Internet. Internet protest is, of course, a central tactic in irregular competition.

Generally, and descriptively, it’s called clicktivism. But its critics called it slacktivism. Why? The reason some call digital protest “slacktivism” is because they believe this form of virtual protest is a “cop out.” Their rationale is that the Internet makes protest far too easy for individuals to engage in activism. Those critics, fearing that digital protest doesn’t pack as much punch as real-world protest, say that the Internet is turning would-be real-world activists into protest slackers. Laziness is always a factor in human behavior, isn’t it? Just as social media is accused of precluding real-world relationships, so is slacktivism accused of precluding real-world activism, which clicktivist critics believe is more effective.

My take on clicktivism or slacktivism is that it is an important trend affecting irregular competition. I have written about this phenomenon before on this blog. And I continually look for new viewpoints on this new “ism.” I recently found one of those viewpoints.

There was an article a few weeks ago in the British newspaper The Guardian. “Clicktivism is Ruining Leftist Activism,” written by Micah White, a contributing editor to the activist publication Adbusters Magazine, disparages Internet protest. In the article, Micah says:

Gone is faith in the power of ideas, or the poetry of deeds, to enact social change. Instead, subject lines are A/B tested and messages vetted for widest appeal. Most tragically of all, to inflate participation rates, these organisations increasingly ask less and less of their members. The end result is the degradation of activism into a series of petition drives that capitalise on current events. Political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links.

These are very good insights. Mr. White seems to have put a lot of thought into his article. But I think he is missing an important perspective.

I can understand his sentiment that Internet activism can become a “soulless” action. Certainly, it’s possible that this process can take some of the emotion out of activism, reducing it to just another daily chore. Imagine when clicktivism becomes so much more common, spreading far and wide across the digital world, that it makes the signing of an online petition or the sending of a protest email just as quotidian as updating your Twitter status. But would this sort of “hum-drum” activism make clicktivism any less of a threat to the modern corporation?

Mr. White’s view against clicktivism is from the activist perspective. But he foregoes an examination from the perspective of the activism’s target. So, since this blog is about how companies deal with irregular competition, let’s consider clicktivism from the perspective of a manager in a modern corporation.

To the corporate communications, or issues management, or public relations professional tasked with the responsibility of maintaining a corporate image, it doesn’t seem likely that they would care whether or not the clicktivism or slacktivism was soulless. Any level of discontent, any level of negative emotion against a corporation and expressed digitally would be considered a negative, and something to be avoided. Clicktivism or slacktivism, to these corporate professionals it doesn’t matter. Unlike what Mr. White expressed in his article, the image managers would be concerned with the number of clicks on an activist site, or the number of online petition signatures, or the number of protest emails sent to the CEO of their corporation. Whereas these metrics are derided by Mr. White and characterized as “political passivity” and the “marketization of social change,” to the image professionals these sorts of things matter. And they matter to the general audience as well.

So, while activists, irregular competitors that they are, debate the nuances of digital activism, I think they’re missing the bigger picture. And that bigger picture is, I think, that the rest of the world just doesn’t think that deeply about clicktivism, or slacktivism, or any other “ism” by which activists wish to call digital protest. To Joe and Jane Average, a negative message is a negative message. The more negative messages there are, the more they will affect Joe and Jane. And by distracting themselves in debating these issues, the irregular competitors are simply missing the bigger picture.

But, for all you image managers reading this, maybe the missing of that bigger picture isn’t such a bad thing?

Share on Facebook

Through the miracle of Google Alerts, I recently noticed a unique type of social media protest. This one is a situation where activists are targeting for protest other activist organizations because those organizations are, in the opinion of the protesters, too [...]]]> As Monty Python used to say . . . and now for something completely different.

Through the miracle of Google Alerts, I recently noticed a unique type of social media protest. This one is a situation where activists are targeting for protest other activist organizations because those organizations are, in the opinion of the protesters, too mercenary and not activist enough. Yes, you read that correctly,  and I thought it peculiar as well. Here’s the story.

First, a tiny bit of background is needed. Change.org is a social site as well as an activist organization, which I have profiled (Interestingly in that profile, I found that Change.org is most likely a for-profit corporation, but that’s a different story. See my Change.org profile for more information.) Through their site, Change.org offers anyone the opportunity to create a petition drive, enabling the petition supporters to easily send messages of protest to the target of the petition. The petition targets are often companies accused of committing various behaviors found objectionable by the petitioner and its supporters. But not always. You probably realize by now where I am heading.

Now here’s the “something completely different” part. If you read this blog regularly, you will have read that I believe that some anti-corporate activist tactics can be turned back around on the activists themselves. “Payback is always a bitch.” Well, here’s a good example of such turnaround payback and it involves Change.org which recently featured a petition drive entitled “Less money collecting, more actions!” The petition asks its “signers” to demand that various activist organizations “act more” and “collect less.” (Why am I thinking of Jerry Maguire?) The targets of the petition are:

• Rainforest Action Network,
• Greenpeace National,
• Earthjustice ,
• 1Sky National Office,
• Sierra Club National Headquarters,

and five other activist organizations. Interesting, isn’t it?

As of the date that I wrote this post, in a little over one week, the petition had only 23 signers with a goal of 800. I’d say that was pretty slow progress, especially for a petition that’s on a site that is as highly trafficked as Change.org. This activist vs. activist petition certainly has a way to go to hit its goal. But you may check their progress currently by clicking here.

It’ll be interesting, in the game of activist vs. activist, to see how far this protest goes and if the targeted organizations are responsive to their protesters.

Share on Facebook