DON’T JUST SIT THERE

Today, most people share a peculiar “either/or” attitude toward environmental protection; people can be concerned about either the rights of business or protecting the natural environment. Consequently, people in business are automatically regarded as enemies of the environment. When businessmen express concern about the environment, they are assumed to have an ulterior (and discreditable) motive. Particularly if they represent a resource company, they start from a deficit position in any discussion of environmental matters. Before making a useful contribution to such a discussion, they must first defend against hostile accusations of waste, despoliation and greed. If the discussion is a televised event, it is likely to be so brief that by the time they manage to extricate themselves from the moral red ink, the negative impression is solidly entrenched.

This has happened so frequently of late that a number of questions come to mind. Why are so few people in the mining industry doing anything about it? Why do business representatives allow themselves to be treated like criminals on national television? When they have the opportunity, why don’t they take public issue with flagrant inaccuracies? Why is only business assumed to be self-serving, and why are the contributions of business to the nation’s welfare ignored? Why do environmental initiatives and activities of genuinely concerned businesses get such a backhanded reception, something to the effect that it’s about time and it’s the least they could do?

There is an acceptable middle ground between engaging in the nasty tactics of a professional agitator and lying down to provide a better target. By not responding to the sometimes preposterous claims of environmental activists, by allowing them to continue unchallenged and uncorrected, business does itself incalculable harm. Interviewees who give no answers and no defence make it fair for others to assume they have none. This perpetuates the view that business is guilty as charged.

A perfect example occurred recently on CBC’s The Journal. On the question of the cement industry’s wish to substitute discarded tires for coal as fuel in high-temperature kilns, a representative of a Canadian cement manufacturer was left for dead by a single-minded, strident agitator who accused the industry of attempting to exploit a naive and unsuspecting public under a pretence of public service. Though the industry did not claim that using waste tires as fuel would solve that particular problem, the activist made it appear that here again, through venal deception, industry was angling to benefit at the expense of the taxpayer and future generations.

Another favorite tactic of the activist was to ignore facts and the responses to questions posed earlier in the interview. And it worked, because listeners either forgot what they had heard or didn’t grasp its true significance. Or maybe what sticks in the mind is that which is said forcefully and often. In this case, although the audience was told once — quietly — of the successful European experience with this same technology, the activist repeated several times that no evidence of safety exists. The latter message will be remembered. That and the fact that the industry spokesmen did not stand up for themselves. Their very reluctance made an impact as great as the haranguing of their opponent.

Business must stop operating on the assumption that all they have to do is the right thing. They must recognize the new reality: that they have to sell not only their products, but also their existence. The mining industry should be preparing for the environmental focus to shift to it from the pulp and paper sector. Environmentalists are now able, professional and dedicated adversaries, with a staggering degree of public support. They can be countered only by an equally professional public relations effort, one that prepares industry spokesmen to deal with not just reasonable individuals, but ideologues and people who do not shrink from questionable tactics when expressing their views.

The mining industry has a serious shortage of people with the advocacy skills to present its viewpoint to the public in a persuasive manner. Any spokesman for a mining or mineral processing firm nowadays should be prepared to anticipate any question, any hostile remark, any challenge. The response should be complete and concise and leave no room for misinterpretation. The manner should be confident but not cocky, helpful not condescending, patient but never patronizing. Above all, the spokesman must not let courtesy overcome the need to keep the record straight. Insist on the right to finish remarks, in spite of interruptions. A statement that is wrong should be met head on and corrected. Nonsense should be confronted and described as such. Criticism should be handled in a way that does not convey arrogance or an uncaring attitude.

I believe the industry would have more supporters if it took the trouble to cultivate them. And rather than just riding down the canyon wondering which bend hides the ambush, the industry should be heading for the high ground and setting the agenda itself. It should explain itself in terms that the average person wants to believe. This does not include pointing out that, after all, they live here too and want to leave their children a nice, clean world. It sounds irritatingly self-serving.

The industry’s intentions are good. One need only read the Codes of Practice and other statements on environmental protection to know that. But intentions are useless unless people pay attention, and right now nobody is attracting the right kind of attention.