GlobalTort : Commentary from lawyers and experts on mass torts, law, insurance and science

The age of inter-connectedness and scrutiny is making it harder to control reputation and spin, and business impacts can be severe. Just ask the now bankrupt entities that until recently were happily and profitably "processing" the "pink slime" sold as some form of "meat." 

Law reviewers are now taking on larger targets, such as Chevron.  This news arrive from Kevin Jon Heller's post at Opinio Juris about a new law review article assessing Chevron and greenwashing. The abstract, provided in Kevin's post,  is as follows; see his post for more and for links. 

"As green business practices grow in popularity, so does the temptation to “greenwash” one’s business to appear more environmentally and socially responsible than it actually is. We examined this phenomenon in an earlier paper, using BP and the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe as a case study and developing a framework for policing dubious claims of corporate social responsibility. This Article revisits these issues focusing on Chevron, an oil company that claims in its advertisements to care deeply about the environment and the communities in which it operates, even as it faces an $18 billion judgment for polluting the Ecuadorean Amazon and injuring its people. After describing Chevron’s “we agree” advertising campaign, the Article sets out our framework for approaching “faux” corporate social responsibility, gauges whether misled consumers and investors might have a legal remedy as a result of Chevron’s advertising claims, and proposes refinements to better regulate corporate greenwashing."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kevin LaCroix of the D & O Diary has an interesting, new post on "benefit corporations." That is, companies aimed at achieving goals desired by its shareholders, regardless of "maximizing shareholder value."  (One might argue the two are one and the same, but that's a topic for another day). The post describes various state statutes aimed at defining roles of officers and directors for "benefit corporations," and provides helpful commentary and links. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Foley Hoag's blog on CSR and the Law includes this year- end "top 5" post. It's well worth reading for an overview of big picture issues that in one or way another related to potential tort liability of companies.

One recent post from the same blog did not make the "top 5" list but it seemed significant. The post explained that the EU recently and overwhelmingly passed a resolution which highlights the potential power of CSR. Thus, the gist of the resolution brings to the forefront the reality that corporations are simply dumping costs when they fail to research adequately and distribute products which cause harms. Thus, the post explains:

• "First, European companies enjoying the benefits of trade must be asked to conduct themselves in a socially and environmentally responsible manner in developing countries and elsewhere. 
• Second, “non-compliance with CSR principles constitutes a form of social and environmental dumping” in developing countries to the detriment of companies and workers in Europe, who are required to meet more stringent social and environmental standards. 
• Third, the EU’s trade policy must be consistent with and complimentary of its other foreign policy priorities on matters such as environmental protection and development aid."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link