It all depends on how transparent and how real all the greeness really is - an example: BASF has a part of their website devoted to trumpeting their sustainable business philosophy yet according to FOE BASF is trying to scupper the REACH agreement...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/toxic-lobby

Let's change one word in that last statement, and see how it looks:

"It's so easy, and so immature, to paint dictatorships as villains or the enemy; so much harder and yet so necessary to view them as complex collections of imperfect human beings no different from ourselves."

Can you find the word I changed?  How does the sentence look now?  Would cozying up to dictatorships be "mature"?

I hope it forwards the process of understanding here (for all that it matters) to state that a well-thought-out environmentalist objection to corporations bears no resemblance to the logic of routine political dehumanization.  Au contraire; one critiques corporate life because in practical terms it is only about profits.  Corporate environmentalism, if it is brought to the table it all, is seen as being about polishing the corporate image to enhance said corporate profits.  (Idealistic corporate environmentalism, then, is about believing things to be otherwise, and is maintained by hiding the unsavory realities of the profits-system from one's eyes while dabbling in marginal enterprises.  Paul Hawken, for instance, sells garden tools to rich folk in places like Pasadena's Lake Avenue.)

The so-called "imperfect human beings no different from ourselves" do not stay atop the corporate hierarchies if they do not turn in favorable quarterly reports.  It has nothing to do with whether or not they "care" or whether or not the environment "matters" to them -- the process of financial selection favors those who put profit uber alles, in much the same way as the process of financial selection favors solvent corporations over bankrupt ones.  Will it save a firm to be environmentally responsible if it is bankrupt?

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

A perfect illustration of the kind of thinking that keeps environmentalism in the dark ages. Just off the top of my head I could point out large companies -- Johnson and Johnson, 3M, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, even Monsanto -- that take actions every day to reduce their environmental impact, actions that contribute nothing to their bottom line and are not even publicized, but instead reflect decisions based on guiding credos and principles, of people who "want to do the right thing." These companies are hardly environmental heroes, but they're not villains either. They do some good stuff and some really bad stuff. Why can't we support and encourage the good while discouraging the bad? Why do we have to view them as the enemy?

You might as well just say that money is the greater evil here.  Corporations, or companies of any size, cannot exist without money. It is a simple fact of business.  Large corporations go to the public and solicit investors, small NGOs hit the phones and beg.  It all comes down to the same thing; you need money to keep the lights on, the computers blogging, the staff paid, etc.

This does not necessarily mean that all corporations will chase any chance at making money at any & all ethical costs.  Years ago I worked at Biogen in Cambridge, MA.  I remember quite clearly an all-employee meeting where our CEO at the time, Jim Tobin, said "It is up to you, our scientists, to find the drugs that can treat disease.  That is what I want you to focus on.  Do not reject an idea because you think there is no market, or that we can't make money on it - finding a way to make money on your ideas is my job."  I believe that he truly meant that statement and in fact, it has been in Biogen's mission statement, and backed up with their drug portfolio from day one; to develop medicines for serious un-met medical need, especially in underserved indications (i.e. a disease like MS, which, with "only" about 500,000 people in the US, is too small a market for many big pharma companies).

Money has to be made to survive, but you don't have to sell your soul to do it, and corporations don't have to either.  Some of them do - but I would guess that many more do not.

Surely, large corporations hold tremendous sway, both politically and both within economy/industry simply due to their size, however to ignore the role small businesses play is a mistake. We all have our corner stores, our favorite resraurants, our dry cleaners, etc., that are not part of huge corporations and that play a role in our lives. What is more, it is on this small scale that we are more likely to see decisions made based not only on profit, but on an individual's conscience as well (no share holders to report to).

On this note, we should look to coalitions and groups out there for eco-friendly businesses to join, such as the recently launched Forest Friendly 500 (forestfriendly500.org, of the Kleercut campaign against Kimberly-Clark).

Groups such as these look to pool smaller actors and create a larger voice that can influence the big players (Kimberly-Clark in this case).

Amy Gregory GreenpeaceUSA

I sympathize, LS.  It is ludicrous to portray corporations as the downtrodden victims of oppression by the powerful environmentalists. Carl Pope as the gun-toting Southern sheriff, telling the stammering corporate presidents to get out of town before sundown. Nah...  

This discussion does remind me of the Civil Rights era, but in a different way.  Activists at the time would get very frustrated trying to get across the idea of institutional racism.

Activist: "See how the media, political parties, schools, business collude to keep black people down."

Bewildered response: "I know a lot of good people in (institution_in_question), and they give money to the NAACP.  How can you call them racist?"

The point is you can't understand oppression unless you understand the systematic behavior that gives rise to it.

In a similar way, understanding how the business system works is critical for developing a strategy of environmentalism.  It doesn't matter whether your feelings about capitalism are pro/neutral/con -- we've got to understand the rules of the game in order to be effective.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

These companies are hardly environmental heroes, but they're not villains either. They do some good stuff and some really bad stuff. Why can't we support and encourage the good while discouraging the bad? Why do we have to view them as the enemy?

From Paul Prew's brilliant essay:

The origin of the environmental problem with capitalist production can be linked to the end goal of its central logic. Capitalism is based solely on the logic of ceaseless accumulation of capital (Marx 1981b: 352-3; Marx and Engels 1964: 63; Wallerstein 1983b: 17-8, 1999: 78). Accumulation is the engine of dissipation. For capitalism, accumulation is the mechanism that orders the social world. It is the process around which the rest of the relations are organized. To argue that accumulation is the engine of dissipation is not to say that accumulation is unilinearly determinate, but the logic of capitalism, accumulation, is the singular process that all other relations are somehow forced to conform. The way in which accumulation occurs, or the speed at which accumulation takes place, etc. may be changed by social relations, but the logic remains the same - accumulate greater sums of wealth at the end of the working day than the capitalist had at the beginning. Although the logic of capitalism orders our existence, it at the same time is also the very same mechanism that generates tremendous amounts of entropy and waste. The amount of entropy generated by the capitalist system must, by its very logic, increase as a result of accumulation. Accumulation is not the accumulation of a steady state of materials and wealth, a finite pie so to speak. It is an ever increasing accumulation. The pie must always expand.

The question to be asked, really, is whether we proceed with capitalism until we reach an ecological bifurcation point that leaves the habitability of the earth in question for the vast majority of the population, or we reach a social bifurcation point that leads us to a social system of production that is dissipative, nonetheless, but does not threaten the flowing balance of nature.

For, when that point comes, it will not be the anti-corporate environmentalists who will be associated with the dark ages.  Don't you think?

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

In a similar way, understanding how the business system works is critical for developing a strategy of environmentalism.

To argue that accumulation is the engine of dissipation is not to say that accumulation is unilinearly determinate, but the logic of capitalism, accumulation, is the singular process that all other relations are somehow forced to conform.

Lurking among the abstractions are useful ideas, but it's hard to get at them.  The problem is that many of the Marxist terms have a precise meaning that's hard to convey otherwise: "capital," "accumulation," "periphery".  

In the past, Marxist thought was frequently raided by non-Marxists for  insights in sociology, economics, even psychology.  Many conservatives were a-borrowing too (some of the  neo-cons have a background in Marxism, as Trotskyists apparently).    

Right now, there is a crying need in environmentalism for the deep analysis that Marxists can provide.  As Kip's initial post pointed out, the role of corporations is crucial in dealing with the environmental crisis.  But what is that role to be?

Some of the best pieces I've seen have been by John Bellamy Foster and others who are trying to develop a green Marxism. Example: Capitalism's environmental crisis: is technology the answer?.

 

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Using Grist's own material as a jumping-off point, I refer you to Daryl Hannah's video journal.  When she wanted to protect gorillas in Uganda, she had to provide cisterns for the people who lived near there.  My point is not that Daryl will save the world, but that in order to deal with non-human problems, we have to confront human problems.

In order to deal with the runaway human impact upon the world, for instance, we must deal with the corporate need for rapid and sustained growth above all.  And this, if the business pages are to be believed, is the domain of "Wall Street".  That is to say, the value and direction of business is decided by a consortium of people who influence their sphere of human activity.  The way that we are often side-tracked is by being told that the consortium is too vast to influence: it includes analysts, brokers, workers, executives, investors, consumers, etc.  In short, more and more, it includes everybody.

If we want to stop a dump truck, we have to deal with the driver.  If we want to stop the obsessive pursuit of rapid, sustained profit growth, we have to focus our energy on the parts of the consortuim that make changes happen.  If consumers feel helpless, then we should try to affect executives and analysts to manage their resources more wisely.  If these people seem desperate, then we have to help consumers to make better purchasing decisions.

There is always work to be done.