Some corporate
front groups acknowledge environmental problems but argue that the solutions
being promoted are too expensive, cost jobs, and would have detrimental
economic consequences. For example:
- the
Alliance for Responsible
CFC Policy, representing chemical companies, argued that the
substitution of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, for chlorofluorocarbons,
CFCs, would not be in the public interest because of the costs (Megalli
& Friedman, 1991, p. 6). They were thinking of course, of the
costs to the chemical companies.
Such front
groups tend to portray themselves as moderate and representing the middle
ground and therefore often use words like 'reasonable', 'sensible'
and 'sound'. The use of these words is a way of implicitly saying
that environmentalists are extremists, whilst hiding their own extreme
positions. They downplay the dangers posed by these environmental problems
whilst emphasising the costs of solving them. Examples include:
- the
Coalition for Sensible Regulation, which is a coalition of developers
and corporate farmers in the West,
- the
Alliance for Sensible Environmental Reform which represents polluting
industries.
- the
Citizens
for Sensible Control of Acid Rain operated between 1983 and 1991
to oppose amendments to the Clean Air Act which threatened stricter
standards on electricity generating emissions. It did not have a membership
of individual citizens yet spent more money lobbying in Washington
in 1986 (thanks to funds from coal and electric-utility companies)
than any other lobby group.
Some groups
are formed purely to oppose a particular piece of legislation such as:
- the
Clean
Air Working Group which was formed to fight the Clean Air Act
of 1990 by coal companies that invested millions of dollars in the
campaign.
- Nevadans
for Fair Fuel Economy Standards was formed in 1990 by car manufacturers
who wanted to put pressure on a Nevadan Senator to oppose a Federal
fuel-economy bill. It employed consultants to get members by writing
to "Nevadans who owned taxis, recreational vehicles, pickup trucks,
and other gas guzzlers" telling them the new bill would make running
their vehicles very expensive. The letters did not mention that the
group was a car industry front group and some, who had acted on the
letters felt deceived when they later found out.
- the
Coalition for Vehicle
Choice was established in 1991 by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
of America with a $500,000 grant and the help of public relations
firm E. Bruce Harrison, to fight standards for fuel consumption in
new cars. Its members include a variety of automobile manufacturers
associations, motorists associations, and business groups. Behind
the facade of the front group these organisations argue that fuel
efficiency means smaller unsafer cars. A claim that is hotly denied
by non-industry groups such as the Center for Auto Safety.
...back to top
Additional
Material
Anon.,
The Perils of Presenting
a False Front, Reputation Management, 1996.
Megalli,
Mark and Andy Friedman, 1991, Masks of Deception: Corporate Front
Groups in America, Essential Information.
Pope, Carl,
1995,'Going to extremes: Anti-environmental groups hide their extremism',
Sierra, Vol. 80, No. 5, pp. 14-5.
Description