BUS604: Innovation and Sustainability

Interest groups include business and trade associations, professional organizations, labor unions, environmental advocacy organizations, and cause-oriented citizen groups and lobbies. Individuals and businesses also organize into associations and interest groups for other reasons than to try to influence government. This includes promotional and educational efforts, to support specific activities that are relevant to members (such as clearing and preservation of hiking trails by the Appalachian Mountain Club), and to provide members with select benefits (such as access to cleared trails). Interests groups advocate for public policies that serve the desires of their members and further the mission of their organizations (e.g., environmental interest groups supporting legislation to improve air quality by reducing carbon emissions).

Business Associations

Business efforts to influence public policy and government include not only individual company efforts but also business associations. These associations act collectively to promote public policies in the best interest of business in general and also in the interest of specific industries and localities. Examples of business associations engaging in efforts to influence public policy include the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the state-level business and industry associations, and the local chambers of commerce. The US Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business organization, representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions.

US Chamber of Commerce.

Sidebar

David Martin, "Pediatricians Urge Tougher Chemical Safety Law," CNN Health, http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/04/25/toxic.chemicals/index.html.

Since the Toxic Substances Control Act took effect in 1976, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tested only two hundred of the eighty thousand chemicals in commerce and has regulated only five.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2011 called for an overhaul of the thirty-five-year-old federal law governing toxic chemicals in the environment, saying it fails to safeguard children and pregnant women.

"It is widely recognized to have been ineffective in protecting children, pregnant women and the general population from hazardous chemicals in the marketplace".

Among the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations were the following:

The consequences of chemical use on children and their families should be "a core component" of the new chemical policy.

• Chemicals should meet standards similar to those required for new drugs or pesticides.
• Decisions to ban chemicals should be based on reasonable levels of concern rather than demonstrated harm.
• The health effects of chemicals should be monitored after they are on the market, and the US Environmental Protection Agency should have the authority to remove a chemical from the market if it's deemed dangerous.

"Right now, a company manufactures a chemical and puts it out on the market and reaps the economic reward," said Dr. Jerome Paulson, lead author of the policy statement. "And then the public is responsible for trying to figure out if there is any harm associated with the use of that chemical. And then it's almost a criminal procedure, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Toxic waste.

Individual businesses and different business groups differ on many public policies. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics differed from the American Chemistry Council (http://www.americanchemistry.com/Membership/MemberCompanies) on revisions to the Toxic Substances and Control Act. And in the fall of 2009, Nike, Apple, and two major utilities - California's largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), and New Mexico's largest utility, Public Service Company of New Mexico - left the US Chamber of Commerce because of the organization's stance against policies to address climate change.

Sidebar

An excerpt from PG&E CEO Peter Darbee's resignation letter to the US Chamber of Commerce read as follows:

We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our view, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another…I fear it has forfeited an incredible chance to play a constructive leadership role on one of the most important issues our country may ever face.

In contrast to the US Chamber of Commerce, the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) was a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that came together to call on the federal government to enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP had issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change.

The members of USCAP included some of the largest, best-known, and most highly respected companies in the United States including Alcoa, Chrysler, the Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors Company, Honeywell, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, PG&E Corporation, Shell, Siemens Corporation, and Weyerhaeuser. The members believed that swift legislative action in 2009 based on the USCAP solutions-based proposal titled Call for Action would encourage innovation, enhance America's energy security, foster economic growth, improve our balance of trade, and provide critically needed US leadership on this vital global challenge.

On the other side are those who deny that there has been significant climate change. Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny, or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior. Climate change denial has been mostly associated with the energy lobby and free market think tanks, often in the United States.