Green America
The contest, which began in early March, tallied votes for nine companies and related organizations based on their worst corporate practices.
Monsanto’s legacy includes Agent Orange, DDT and massive aerial spraying of Round-Up as a drug-war tactic, as well as unlabeled and untested genetically modified crops. Their practices enable factory farming and put small farmers out of business. They continue to push genetically modified crops in the developing world, which results in locking farmers into cycles of debt and dependence on chemical crop inputs.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has benefited hugely from the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. It regularly spends millions of dollars for television and radio advertisements for or against candidates and is not required to disclose its donors. As a result, corporations can spend unlimited money on political advertising through the Chamber of Commerce without meaningful disclosure to shareholders or the general public.
Over three decades of oil drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Chevron has dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into the rainforest. As a result, locals have suffered a wave of cancers, miscarriages and birth defects. Last year, an Ecuadorian court ruled in favor of local communities and ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion in cleanup and restoration efforts.
Todd Larsen, corporate responsibility director, Green America said: "We had nine strong nominations of the most damaging companies in the United States for our “Corporate Fools” contest. We're very excited that our grand prize winner is Monsanto for its impacts on farmers, ecosystems and consumers, and that we have two deserving runners-up: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Chevron. I think one lesson we can take from our winners is that no matter how much money a corporation spends on advertising to make itself look good, the public can see its actual impacts and call that company out on its worst practices."
Ronnie Cummins, director, Organic Consumer Association said: “With the rapidly growing awareness of the health and environmental effects of our corporate controlled industrialized food system, it is no surprise to us that Monsanto has been chosen as the top “Corporate Fool.” The fight against the Biotech Bully of St. Louis embodies some of the most pressing issues of our time, including the current health and obesity crisis, climate change (to which industrial agriculture is a major contributor), and the fight against corporate rule."
Anne Pernick, executive director, Corporate Ethics International/Business Ethics Network commented: “We're thrilled that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is getting the attention it deserves for funneling secret corporate money into our elections. When the Chamber buys political ads on the radio and television, most of the money for the ads is coming from large corporations. They don't want us to know who they are, because we might hold them accountable for the ads. The more of us who speak out against the Chamber hiding the political spending of large corporations, the faster we can fix this very flawed system and safeguard our democracy. We hope people will join us in guessing how much the U.S. Chamber will spend on the 2012 elections (www.guesswhattheuschamberwillspend.org) and calling for an end to secret corporate political spending through the U.S. Chamber."
“We are delighted that Chevron has been recognized as a top "Corporate Fool." Any corporation that spends millions of dollars on greenwashing ads in a vain attempt to wash away its guilt in one of the worst oil-related environmental crimes in history deserves to be singled out as such,” said Paul Paz y Miño, managing director, Amazon Watch. “Chevron's ‘foolish’ efforts at evasion and unwillingness to accept responsibility for the shameful crimes it deliberately committed in the Ecuadorian Amazon make it not only a fool, but one of the worst corporate criminals on the planet.”
Corporate Fool awards will be presented in person to Monsanto, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Chevron on Friday, March 30, 2012.
For more information, click here.
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.