ABSTRACT
The greening of industry is a movement that began in the 1980s and has been growing ever since. One of the driving forces for this movement was the weight of media scrutiny and public opinion in the wake of major environmental disasters. For example, 2000 died when 20 tons of deadly methyl isocyanate was released from a Union Carbide facility in Bhopal, India. Many CEOs must have questioned whether this could happen to them. The effects of this disaster have been extremely long lasting — on the environment, on the affected population, on the company that was responsible, and on the industry. Six years after Bhopal, an opinion poll in the U.S. indicated that the public acceptability rating for the chemical industry had dropped 25%. It was found that more than 60% “rated the chemical industry as
very harmful to the environment
” (Gunningham 1995). Nike and Exxon provide more recent examples of how environmental
issues can severely damage a company’s image. Nike was accused of exploiting laborers overseas by exposing them to substandard working conditions, such as excessive solvent exposure, and in turn marketing expensive shoes to poor inner-city youth. Though the company has made significant strides to ensure that vendors who manufacture their shoes have responsible environmental and safety practices, it seems that this issue never goes away and sticks in the consumers’ mind. Similarly, many people have never forgiven Exxon for the Alaskan oil spill, and the anger appears deep-seated. “I think it’s going to take another generation for Exxon to recover,” said Jeane Vinson of Kona, Hawaii, during a corporate reputation survey. “I can’t get the image of dead birds out of my mind” (
Wall Street Journal
, September 23, 1999). The difficulty in changing a negative public perception has been one of the main drivers for the greening of industry.
