greenconsulting6
lucypeiTruly bringing different “stakeholders” to the table - because the Rio event was very much taken over by the corporate green consultants
Truly bringing different “stakeholders” to the table - because the Rio event was very much taken over by the corporate green consultants
It seemed to be all about communications strategies - not necessarily ads but knowing how to handle media when something happens, oh and having those meetings where they set all the ground rules - so they agree to meet with activists but only on the corporation’s terms. Leveraging the UN stage - so signing charters and prominently displaying their messaging at the stage of a conference.
t seems like the consultants truly see the corporations as the victims here - the CEOs or the people in the companies who can get jail time for not putting appropriate audit systems in place or get trapped in complex legal monitoring requirements - they don’t seem to have a bit of sympathy for the victims or for the activists, who they see as “attacking” them.
There’s a little bit where the CEO of Union Carbide claims to be doing the “moral” not just strictly legal amount of help in the aftermath of Bhopal, given the Indian government’s ownership stake in the plant.
Mostly responsibility is seen as a performance by the Green Consultants - because no matter how “good” you are you still get attacked by activists and the laws are too hard to follow and are designed to trip you up. So responsibility also becomes a pre-emptive offensive strategy - And Green Consultants try to get people within the corporation to see the political, financial investment, PR, etc. benefits that come with this performance of green. It’s necessary to perform “Transparency” [though it wasn’t called that yet, perhaps]- the house analogy. Like the case of ARCO - the somewhat green-er gas is celebrated and rakes in profits and maintains a car-based status-quo; and the explosions are not mentioned.
Taking over the definition of “sustainable development” and making this concept rational, ensuring that economic growth is no longer in opposition to environmental protection - “leading” by being a driver at a UN conference - work done by the “beyond blame” rhetorical trick of [weaponizing inclusion] - self-imposed audits, monitoring, and management tools which are then loudly communicated about, in addition to the participation in institutions that give outside credibility
After it’s clear an “it can’t happen here” approach won’t work, Green Consulting and Enviro-comms and harmonization of oppositions come into play- corporations listening to the different “customer-publics” and finding a way to meet what’s being asked for but on the corporation’s terms. Coming to the table to negotiate but never take demands. Pushing on their own definitions of these terms, especially sustainable development, and co-opting the movement so that environmentalism becomes corporate.
The article explains how a team of medical staff treated (and consequently killed) a number of patients following the flooding of a hospital in New Orleans. The staff in question overdosed the patients to put them out of their pain as they saved other patients who were more likely to survive. The article calls into question the process of triage and how we go about it. Who has the authority to make these decisions, and what lines do we draw between ethics and compassion. The article provides a play-by-play of the events leading up to the flooding, and relevant policies that existed and have been created related to this incident.
“The smell of death was overpowering the moment a relief worker cracked open one of the hospital chapel’s wooden doors.”
“The physician, Anna Pou, defended herself on national television, saying her role was to “help” patients “through their pain,” a position she maintains today.”
From the links provided within the article, relevant information about Hurricane Katrina can be viewed with the commentary and archival articles that published in The New York Times that written by other authors.
Also the author has made in contact with Memorial Medical Center in Uptown New Orleans to focus on the investigation into the detail situations happened with the floodwaters. Afterwards, gained more information on the lethal injection issues.
[http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/hurricane-katrina?inline=nyt-class…]
[http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/hurricanes-and-tropical-storms-hur…]
The article has first emphasis the number of death and corpses during and after the Hurricane Katrina, then with further investigation and research, the issue related to the lethal injection to the patient has raised. From the physician’s perspective, the lethal injection in this case is a way to relief the patient’s pain, as it is a “for” for the lethal injection, which not seems to be violating the medical ethical. From the conclusion parts of the article, the author provided the evidence that “that more medical professionals were involved in the decision to inject patients — and far more patients were injected — than was previously understood.”