Big Business Not To Blame for Environmental Woes

April 6, 2006

By Orli Belman

The image of greedy capitalists shaping laws that allow them to destroy and deplete the environment is a myth, according to a book by USC professor Sheldon Kamieniecki.

“The biggest surprise and major finding of my research is how often business doesn't get its way,” said Kamieniecki, professor of political science in USC College. “I think the issue has been grossly exaggerated by the media, scholars and environmentalists.”

In “Corporate America and Environmental Policy: How Often Does Business Get Its Way?” (Stanford University Press, 2006), Kamieniecki calls the influence of business on environmental and natural resource policy making modest at best.

On the eve of the upcoming celebration for the 36th Earth Day April 22, he said that although the United States has not met its clean air standards or cleaned up its waterways, business is not always to blame.

He finds that corporations rarely take positions on environmental and natural resource legislation, that they do not exert an undue influence in the rule-making process and that they lose as many cases as they win in the federal court of appeals.

“Business selects and chooses which environmental battles to fight, getting involved only when they have a lot to lose,” Kamieniecki said. “When the public is against them, they don't do well, but when the public is neutral or with them, they usually win.”

The newly published work is considered to be the first comprehensive study of business influence in all three branches of government.

Kamieniecki analyzes data from 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, through 2000. He explores how firms have influenced Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, natural resource agencies and the courts.

He also presents six case studies, including the contamination of the Hudson River, the pollution of the Everglades, acid rain and the logging of old-growth forests.

“In those cases, despite some early successes, corporations were eventually forced to bow to the demands of federal officials,” he said.

Kamieniecki cites climate change as the number one issue where business has reached deep into its pockets and worked aggressively to influence government policy.

“Business has been successful first in framing the issue as one that needed more research and now reframing it as an economic issue,” he said. “In light of the scientific data, business leaders should not be asking what will happen to their interests if they adopt an effective climate change policy, but rather what will happen if they don't.”

This is Kamieniecki's eighth book on environmental policy, an issue he has studied for 30 years. He said that seemingly pro-business environmental policies come from allowing industry leaders to shape a national discourse that stresses economic concerns over environmental protection.

He believes this will continue unless the voting public demands improved pollution controls and natural resource conservation from elected officials. He said environmentalists must do a better job getting their message out.

“They have not convincingly made their case as to why immediate action is necessary in order to protect the environment,” he said.

But his larger point is that when it comes to the business and the environment, it shouldn't be a matter of one side getting its way at the expense of the other.

Lamenting that business schools offer little training in environmental issues, Kamieniecki said that decreasing pollution does not have to mean decreasing profit.

“It is a false trade-off,” he said. “We can have both a clean environment and a strong economy.”