This is an expanded version of the first response on this subject.

-----------------------------------------
Ethics of Greenpeace
-----------------------------------------

As a gesture against sponsorship by Shell, some British geographers want 
to nominate Greenpeace for an award by the British Royal Geographical 
Society. This is ethically unacceptable: here more about the ethics of 
Greenpeace.

The underlying logic of the nomination is, acceptance of the free market 
as an ethical regulatory device. Some market liberals explicitly claim 
that no moral standards are necessary for the market - because if 
necessary, firms will compete on ethical grounds. No state regulation of 
animal testing, for instance - instead the consumer pays more for 
non-tested products at The Body Shop. (The Body Shop is a so-called 
"ethical business"). Similarly no regulation of the energy sector - 
because concerned consumers will pay for Greenpeace campaigns, or pay 
extra for "green" electricity. Therefore, say market liberals, the market 
ultimately corrects all wrongs - therefore the market is the ultimate 
moral standard, the ultimate moral arbiter.

This is inherently wrong. The market has inherent ethical defects. 
Precisely because businesses are flexible, they can not pursue any goal, 
other than the goals of the market itself. Market forces can reverse the 
original nature of a firm: railways slowly become road transport 
companies, for instance. However, they must stay within the logic of the 
market. All firms seek:
- the continued existence of the market
- the continued existence of the firm in the market
- the internal functioning of the firm.

In the nature of the market, for instance, firms must discriminate 
against those who oppose the market. They must insist that their 
employees share the 3 values above, which derive from the position of the 
firm in the market economy. Employees (especially at high level) must 
support the existence of the market, the existence of the firm, and the 
functioning of the firm - all this at the expense of other moral norms. 
(Employment offices in west European countries often demand, that the 
unemployed subscribe to these norms).

Firms like Shell and Greenpeace claim that they are entitled to protect 
their own existence, if necessary by exclusion of their opponents. The 
classic defence is that it is "logical". A firm, they say, does not have 
to employ a person who seeks its dissolution.

This is ethically unacceptable. If the existence and function of the 
organisation is a moral norm, in itself, then there is no moral argument 
against the SS, to take an extreme example. (However, exactly this 
argument is still used in Germany to declare the punishment of Wehrmacht 
deserters legal, and prevent their rehabilitation. The German government 
claims, that all armies, inherently, punish deserters - therefore all 
punishment of deserters is just, even if they deserted with anti-Nazi 
motives).

A firm like Shell or Greenpeace is not entitled to refuse employment to 
those who oppose it. Yet almost all firms do. It is reasonable to assume, 
that Greenpeace employs no anti-Greenpeace campaigners, and that it 
demands "affinity with the organisation".

Affinity demands are immoral. This kind of pure market thinking, puts the 
firms position in the market above moral judgement, above conscience. 
This kind of market thinking is indeed unable to see a distinction 
between a bakery and the SS. It sees them both as organisations, making 
reasonable affinity demands. This market thinking sees the world as a 
series of "career opportunities" - and since there is always another 
career, no moral norms apply. I have heard this explicitly from 
university staff (teachers and advisors). "Shell is entitled to demand 
its employees wear a tie" "Shell is entitled to demand acceptance of the 
free market from its employees", and so on. Nothing Shell does is wrong, 
these people think, because you can always go and work for Greenpeace. 
The market will resolve the issue, if there is one. There is always 
another job, another career - the moral universe of the market is 
open-ended and therefore good. This is the kind of mentality, which 
accepts Shell / Greenpeace discrimination, against opponents.

This moral distortion is related to other forms of discrimination by 
Greenpeace.

Greenpeace Nederland, for example, raises funds, and employs fund 
raisers, The department which does this is organised on business lines, 
which may be effective, but not necessarily ethical. In recruiting these 
staff, Greenpeace Nederland explicitly discriminates (the source here is 
an advertisement in De Volkskrant, 25 maart 1995). Greenpeace asks "an 
excellent command of the Dutch language". This is a well known code in 
Dutch recruiting advertising for "no immigrants". Eevn if that were not 
the intention, it is in itself discriminatory: no recent immigrants will 
have an "excellent" command of Dutch. It is probably true, that a Turkish 
or Moroccan accent deters some donors. It is not ethical, however, to 
adapt to prejudice in this way. It is a classic example of market forces 
being wrong, in themselves.

Greenpeace discriminates by language, more generally. The advertisement 
also requires good English: the combination Dutch/German/French would be 
unacceptable, therefore. Yet Greenpeace International is willing to 
employ monolingual English speaking staff. It is a largely 
English-language organisation. Despite its "global" pretensions, it is 
culturally an "Atlantic" organisation, linking people in various 
countries, who use English as a second language. (In many countries, that 
is equivalent to the educated elite).

Greenpeace Nederland also discriminates on psychological grounds. The 
advertisement insists on stress-resistance. Almost by definition, that 
excludes people who have recently undergone traumatic experiences: 
refugees, rape victims, torture victims. Psychological discrimination is 
increasing, as is the use of psychological tests: however, it is still 
accepted as normal, and it is still legal in the Netherlands. The world 
revealed by such advertisements is an aggressively competitive world of 
assertive personalities, with no external moral standards, and yet all 
within the standards of the firm. This is exactly the kind of mentality 
which Shell, for instance, promotes for students in its recruiting 
activities. It is not a world for the shy, the weak, or anyone with a 
conscience.

-----------------------------------
The nature of Greenpeace
-----------------------------------

In summary, Greenpeace can be categorised as follows: it is an 
entrepreneurial organisation, in plain language a business or firm. The 
following characteristics distinguish it from an ethical organisation:
- it competes for market share with other similar organisations
- it is prepared to harm the interests of competitors, for instance by 
reducing their market share
- it sells products at more than cost price
- it seeks to assure its own continued existence
- it makes no provision for its dissolution on moral grounds
- it makes plans on the basis that it will continue to exist, rather than 
planning for dissolution
- it does not distinguish, on ethical grounds, among customers or clients
- it does not select personnel on ethical grounds, except those grounds 
related to its existence, as a firm in the market
- it operates a principle of competition internally, for instance in 
competitive selection of job applicants.

It is best described as a theme marketing organisation, with direct 
self-marketing. That is, it asks people directly to pay for its 
activities. It also markets theme merchandise, related to itself and 
general "environmental" themes. It sells intellectual property (its 
logo), and engages in some advisory work. These last activities may come 
to dominate, but Greenpeace is still primarily an organisation, that 
raises funds, to finance activities, to attract funds.

Paul Treanor
---------------------------
On the ethics of liberal structures such as the market, see:

http://www.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/lib.summary.html

auch auf Deutsch, anche in Italiano.

More detail in Liberalism: Interacting to Conserve at

http://www.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/lib.interacting.html



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%