The focus on the boreal forest is heating up again. This time it is a focus around the habitat of the Woodland Caribou and certain allegations being made by ForestEthics, an environmental NGO on YouTube. The allegations claim negative impacts on the Woodland Caribou due to forestry practices of West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd. in Alberta and B.C.
I have done some policy research work for the Alberta forest industry in 2005 focused on what the public expectations were around that industry sustaining and enhancing its social license to operate in the public forested lands. The second most important value driver amongst Albertans around what they expected of industry was the effective protection of wild life habitat.
The topic is timely and “hot.” ForestEthics and West Fraser obviously both know this is a very critical issue and not just grist for PR purposes. That said the medium is as interesting to me as is the message. The use of the Internet by ForestEthics is a significant move towards reaching a new and receptive audience for their message. MSM is not very much trusted any more and if this video were on broadcast television it would be seen as a “commercial” even if it came from an ENGO. On the Internet, it has the chance of being more “believable” and better received by a more influential audience, if you do it correctly.
There is a larger collection of issue oriented activists, well informed, knowledgeable and engaged “influentials” in the “netizens” group that tend to haunt the web. Industry has not caught on to this reality as yet and they ignore it at their peril.
Equally as interesting is the counter-activist approach being taken by West Fraser in response to the allegations. Usually such incidences have caused corporations to generate expensive full page newspaper ads with lots of feel good PR verbiage that come across as mostly self serving and staged. West Fraser has focused it messages on directly challenging the facts and representations in the ForestEthics YouTube video. This is a responds to the challenge and an invitation for the public to engage and learn more about the issues and the implications but to do so in a way that goes to testing credibility and authenticity of the messengers as much as the message.
As George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute says, (and I paraphrase), “The facts while interesting, are almost totally irrelevant. It is how you frame the issues and activate values that make the difference in public opinion.”
There are clear facts about the plight of the Woodland Caribou and the species is undoubtedly under serious duress. What caused this and what is being done about it are more facts based. Who really “cares about the Woodland Caribou” is the framing context so far from what I have read. What is being done about the issues, both “good” and “bad,” is the values activation effort. That is what is really going on here between ForestEthics and West Fraser.
I applaud both sides for their initiativesand efforts on the issues. Now the public has to make up its mind. Our research involved over 3000 Albertans in the fall of 2005 and we know the issue of wildlife habitat is important to the public. It demands attention and resolution.
The process question about how we see moving forward on the issue is one that also interests me and it is also very important. Is it to be resolved in the old fashioned way by who is the most effective at didactics in a pure adversarial contest of key messaging and media positioning?
Or is it going to be about a more meaningful and inclusive dialogue that is presented and “sponsored” by authoritative, authentic people who are focused on finding the collective wisdom to design effective sustainable solutions? I am pulling for the latter and fully expect if that is what happens here the caribou, our environment and even our society will all be better for it.
In the meantime I have had the pleasure to meet some of the key individuals in ForestEthics and in West Fraser and know them to be quality and capable individuals. Time will tell how wise they (and we citizens are) can actually be about all of this and the many other critical environment issues we now face.
I will be following this story line as it evolves with great interest and will do my best keep you informed about its progress.
As a West Fraser employee, here's some of the things I find very frustrating about this so called "ForestEthics/West Fraser Square Off":
ReplyDelete1. The people who post these video's (ForestEthics) have the option of having any comments that are posted about the video first vetted for approval by them. In other words, if you send a comment about the video to post beside it on YouTube, ForestEthics has to OK it before it is posted (free speech eh?). We found this out because we did send comments and they were never posted. Further investigation with YouTube revealed this "approval" feature.
2. Why (oh why) is there no journalistic investigation of groups like ForestEthics. This group is the most unethical ENGO I've ever come across (and I've come across lots). The video they posted on YouTube wasn't even in caribou habitat, and one of the areas wasn't even West Fraser's. Any journalist could track down the amount of lies and misleading statements with any sort of minimal effort, but they never do. They are taken at their word.
3. How are we as a society letting groups like this get away with the extortion tactics that they use? They are telling a Company that if you don't do exactly what they want, then they are going to target your company and customers - they will try to put you out of business. Why is it OK for ENGOs to use this tactics - in any other setting they would be sued or counter attacked. Industry can't do this because these groups just use that against them.
I think ENGOs should develop some sort of convention/document that they sign and agree to behave a certain way (that they decide - for example, to tell the truth, don't mislead, no violence, etc.) Any legitimate ENGO would have no issue signing such a document. Corporations are now routinely developing such documents that outline how they will behave (corporate responsibility). At least then when a company is unfairly attacked by an ENGO (who has signed onto such a document) there would be some sort of recourse to question their integrity.
Being in the target of such an unethical group as "ForestEthics" is unbelievable frustrating and demoralizing. Truth seems to pay absolutely no role (as you say in your blog) to the issue - no one, especially the media is interested in the truth; just a good story. It seems like if you call yourself an ENGO, you can get away with anything.
I would like to respond to the paraphrasing of George Lakoff. I am a cognitive scientist who works at the Rockridge Institute and I am very familiar with George's work. He never claims that facts are irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteHere is a quote from his book Don't Think of an Elephant!:
Facts are all- important. They are crucial. But they must be framed appropriately if they are to be an effective part of public discourse. We have to know what a fact has to do with moral principles and political principles. We have to frame those facts as effectively and honestly as we can. And honest framing of the facts will entail other frames that can be checked with other facts.
Please take care when presenting ideas about framing. The Rockridge Institute is strongly opposed to language manipulation and spin. Our work is based on a scientific understanding of the brain that is applied to language. You can learn more about frames here:
http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/03/26/thinking-points-discussion-of-chapter-3-part-1-frames
Thanks Joe for the correction in the above comment.
ReplyDeletePlease don't interpret my posting and comments "paraphrasing" Lakoff's point as to facts as "spin."
Rather it is a mistake on my part as to the importance of framing of facts. Which, come to think about it, actually makes your point about that framing of the facts and even more relevant.
I appreciate your comment on the danger of "language manipulation and spin" and assure you, while I appear guilty - it was not my intent.
I will also re-read "Don't Think of an Elephant" to revisit and refresh my understanding of Lakoff's work.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteNo problem. I am moderating a weekly discussion of Rockridge's book Thinking Points that you might like to check out. You can find it at www.rockridgenation.org. The article I posted for Chapter 3, Part 1 is about frames and may be helpful to you and your readers.
Please feel free to join our web discussions. Every Monday I write a new article and moderate discussions throughout the week.
All the best,
Joe
Thx Joe - I am familiar with Rockridge and will check it out.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else find it "interesting" that Forest "Ethics?" received one million dollars during a recent smear campaign to go away, which they claim is for research. Also, they sent that client to a supplier that is not FSC certified and ranks lower environmentally than their previous suppliers? It appears as though Forest Ethics? track record reflects "Bullying" to move companies to a supplier that also kicks-back $$ to Forest Ethics and is not necessarily any more "green", in fact less-so often.
ReplyDeleteTime and time again Forest Ethics has had the ear of paper suppliers and could have used the companies they were targeting to help implement environmental change. instead they chose to "strong arm" them to other suppliers not to constitute improvement in additional suppliers but rather to exert power and further their own monetary and power-rich agenda.
Anon, can you post some sources on that? I'm interested in finding out more.
ReplyDelete