Top 145 Most Ethical Companies ?

Today I came across a mysterious event organised in the UK for "all those working to encourage Dutch levels of cycling in Britain". I came across by chance of course because the sort of people who would organise this type of event probably don't want someone like me coming along and spoiling their three days packed full with seminars, lunches and dinners by pointing out that they don't seem to bother to actually ride any bikes.

Anyway, the conference is to have contributions from pretty much the usual "rent-a-quote" types that usually turn up to such events, quite a few council people, and various contributors from corporate sponsors.

I looked at just one of the sponsors' websites and found a proud claim that they have "once again been named one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for 2013 by the Ethisphere Institute". That sounds good, right ? Well, perhaps not. I looked up this Ethisphere institute and found their list (link removed because its no longer what it was) of 145 "ethical" companies. Very interesting...

Banks, financial services, military contractors, an oil pipeline company, mining companies, several US health insurers (more information here), drug companies who practice vivisection, cosmetic companies who do the same,

I've no particular reason to pick on Cummins, but the
juxtaposition of truck taking logs from a forest with
"sustainability" written underneath and the boast about
being "one of the world's most ethical companies" was
hard to ignore, especially from a company who's product
exists to consume fossil fuels

The 21 below are all picked out simply because they're names that I recognized and thought were relatively well known. Some are amongst those that I personally avoid over ethical issues:

1. Alcoa (mining and metals)
2. American Express
3. Cisco
4. Colgate-Palmolive
5. Cummins (big engines, see right)
6. Ford
7. Gap
8. General Electric (oil, gas, jet engines, shale gas, nuclear power)
9. Intel
10. Johnson Controls
11. Kellogg
12. Kimberly-Clark
13. L'OREAL (cosmetics)
14. PepsiCo
15. Rockwell Collins (defence)
16. Safeway
17. Starbucks 
18. Tata Steel (mining and metals)
19. The Co-operative Group (UK supermarkets)
20. Time-Warner
21. Visa

So it makes me wonder what this list actually means. I find it hard to believe that anyone who takes any particular ethical stance would find that all 145 of the listed companies would pass. So whose ethics does the list reflect ? Does it have any real meaning at all ? Do such lists ever really have any meaning ?

If they're getting it right, we're getting it wrong. We don't do any of that nasty stuff !

Are these awards anything more than marketing ?
Is this anything more than a group of not particularly ethical companies getting together to greenwash themselves by awarding themselves prizes ?

Support this blog. We run our business so ethically as we can, supplying quality bicycle components for a fair price.

Taxation without representation

I've been disenfranchised for my entire life. While I had been able to vote in the UK since I was 18, not once did my vote ever count for anything at all due to the terrible "first past the post" electoral system of the UK.

One of the good things about the Netherlands is that there is a much fairer political system here which gives smaller parties a voice. As a result, votes are not wasted in the Netherlands and no-one is disenfranchised. Well, I say "no-one", but actually that's not quite true as I remain disenfranchised. I can't vote in national elections in the Netherlands because I am not (yet) a Dutch citizen. I could still vote in the British elections, but there's really not much point in going to the effort of registering to do so merely to see my vote count for nothing at all yet again. As a result, I am disenfranchised. I pay tax to the Dutch government, but I do not get to influence the Dutch government. Taxation without representation as Americans would likely put it.

That sounds bad, but actually it is no worse for me than it would be if I lived in a country with a less fair political system, such as the UK, USA or many others where I could see my vote count for nothing year after year. There are many people in those countries whose votes never count for anything and they are just as disenfranchised as I am.

What is needed is electoral reform to a fairer system as is used here in the Netherlands. There has long been a movement in Britain which would like to achieve a fairer political system, but last year the reformers made such a colossal mess of their campaign that they set back any attempt to fix this problem for many years.

Now that brings me to the upcoming election in the Netherlands (September 12th). There were hustings in the centre of Assen yesterday and the local representatives of political parties were out in force to convince people to vote for them. This all happened in the middle of the main shopping area in Assen, where there are always hundreds of bicycles parked. Only one political party brought along a car as the centre-piece of their display and that was Groenlinks - the "Green Party" of the Netherlands.

I've noticed before, not only here but also in the UK and other countries, that "Green" parties seem to be particularly easily taken in by the implausible claims of car manufacturers that today's latest technology (what technology that is varies from year to year and has been unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, hybrids and electric cars, for instance) will somehow transform what is one of the most energy wasting devices that we have into something altogether different. This never happens of course, because actually such claims are mere relativism. Electric cars use almost exactly the same amount of energy as cars which burn fossil fuels directly and they are just as capable of killing more than a million people each year. It is only good for car manufacturers if everyone buys a new car and throws away the old ones, not for the environment.

It's Greenwash, nothing more, and it's a shame that it is believed. I don't vote for Greenwash, so I don't vote for Green parties either. I find it amazing that Green politicians are often not particularly enthusiastic supporters of cycling, and that this is true not only in other countries where bicycles are not used much for transportation, but also here in the Netherlands where we have a higher proportion of trips made by bike than in any other country in the world.


The Fietsersbond has information on their website about the policies of each party with regard to cycling. Groenlinks does have a lot of good policies for cycling, even though they are also enthusiastic about cars.

I could vote, I'd be voting Partij voor de Dieren (PvdD) - Party for the Animals. I think the name makes many people think they are little more than a single issue pressure group, however this party seems to have more comprehensive green policies than any other, and they are the only one to really recognize the effect of animal based agriculture and diet on our world.

Anyone who has ever tried out an online "ecological footprint" calculators will have noticed that adopting a vegan diet and using motorized transport as little as possible are the most effective things that one can do for the environment.

It's that ecological footprint time of year...

Today I was pointed towards a website which calculates ecological footprints (link removed because it's no longer what it was). Many people reflect on their life at this time of year, and I suppose that looking at your impact on the planet is a way of reflecting.

The website claims that my carbon footprint is 0.78 earths, which I suppose indicates a relatively sustainable level of consumption.

Being vegan, using motorized transport of all types as little as possible, keeping the thermostat in our home at a relatively low level in winter, not making long distance journeys around the world, making things last and fixing things which go wrong rather than always "updating" equipment all genuinely help to keep the footprint down, and it is likely that our footprint is lower than that of some of our neighbours

Of course, to give an exact figure of "0.78 earths" is actually nonsense. The vagueness of the questions asked means that results are not far from being completely meaningless. Accurately measuring an individual's consumption would take a lot more than a few questions on a website. Besides, like everyone else we consume some amount of fossil fuel both directly and indirectly. There is no truly sustainable level of consumption of a limited resource. What's "ecological" about using up a limited resource, even if we do so relatively frugally ?

I always approach these sorts of things with a bit of caution as you have to ask what the people behind them are trying to achieve. "Follow the money". Sometimes people who take part in such surveys report their calculated impact as something to be proud of, but I don't think they should. Websites are not always what they seem.

In this case, the website is sponsored by a range of different companies including Coca Cola and a construction company whose "Latest News" on their own website concerns a contract for exploitation of oil sands. Do they really have our best interests at heart ? Do they really want us to consume fewer processed foods and less oil or could this be "greenwashing" ?

This website, like others of its ilk, gives "carbon offsetting" as a partial solution. It's nothing of the sort. Carbon offsetting has become a business in its own right. Airlines sometimes give customers an option to "offset" their journeys by paying a little extra when they buy tickets. However, carbon offsetting is a con. It's merely a salve to the conscience. It allows consumers to continue to consume while feeling good about it. However, fundamentally, "offsetting" is a nonsense because it doesn't even attempt to solve the problem that is being created. Buying carbon offsets from an airline does not create more jet fuel. You can't put oil back under the ground by planting a tree.

If you want to do good, then by all means plant trees. Also do please support schemes to give people in the third world more efficient stoves, and make the choice of using renewable energy. These are all good things to do. However, don't imagine that any of these things gives you a right to burn fossil fuels or makes any difference to the impact that you make by doing so.

There is only one way to reduce your impact and that is to reduce how much you consume. Walk or cycle as much as you want, but use motorized transport as little as possible. It's not so much the mode of transport but the distance that you travel which is important. Buy reliable products, look after them and keep them working as long as possible. Don't replace things which still work, don't buy things you don't need. Don't let "fashion" convince you to replace your existing clothes, computer or telephone. Avoid buying products with non-replaceable batteries. Learn to repair things yourself. Insulate your home and keep your thermostat set low in the winter (we only increase ours to 18 C in the evening). Eat responsibly (a vegan diet reduces impact considerably).