As corporations have come to recognize growing interest in their environmental impact, most firms have chosen to constructively engage with the public. The “greenest” companies have reduced their energy use and the impact of their products and operations, and many others have at least claimed to do so.

Such “greenwashing” is a concern of investors who consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in their evaluations of corporate sustainability. But even as major firms have chosen, perhaps grudgingly, to work with their ESG stakeholders, at least one business lobby has taken a different tack.

Emily Stone of Green Century Capital Management has shared a telling letter on the climate change debate from David Chavern, Chief Operating Officer of the US Chamber of Commerce, which is reprinted in full below.

The letter’s combative tone is certainly a change from most environment-related public statements in 2009. In response to high-profile defections from the Chamber, Mr. Chavern suggests that businesses face a “campaign against us being carried out by our normal adversaries — trial lawyers, activist unions, environmental extremists, etc.”

Ms. Stone has noted, in a message to the Social Investment Forum listserv, that investors are missing from this pejorative collection of bogeymen. In fact, 43 investor groups, representing billions in holdings, have together asked many firms to distance themselves from the Chamber’s position. So far, Exelon, PG&E, Nike, and others have done so.

Mr. Chavern’s letter calls for businesses to present a unified front against “interest groups [that] are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community.”

Policy conflicts between interest groups are a natural part of democracy, and the Chamber of Commerce is right to fight for its members’ objectives. Still, regarding environmental policy, it seems to have drawn inaccurate battle lines. The threat of climate change has already changed the economic and political climate, and this has helped forge new alliances among many erstwhile “adversaries.” The New York Times reports that it has also fractured “once-monolithic” lobbies like the oil and gas industry.

Are these renegade firms in the thrall of lawyers, unions and extremists? Or are they simply responding to business risks that the Chamber is neglecting to acknowledge?

In an October 15 release, Green Century and Walden Asset Management quoted Bruce F. Freed, President of the Center for Political Accountability, about the risks of “misalignment” between businesses and their advocates:

“Climate change is one of those major issues where misalignment between companies and trade associations carries serious bottom line risks for companies. Good corporate governance should lead companies to assure that their trade associations do not engage in activities and use their funds in ways that may damage the company’s reputation or be at odds with its stated public policy and business objectives.”

In this fight, perhaps the Chamber should reconsider its strategy. If so many shareowners and members are its “adversaries,” for whom is it working?

[The full text of David Chavern’s letter follows.]

Special Message from David Chavern, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

October 16, 2009

We understand that you may have received e-mails, letters and others communications from various groups asking your organization to end its association with the U.S. Chamber.

Please note that these calls against the Chamber are part of a broad-based, multi-source campaign against us being carried out by our normal adversaries — trial lawyers, activist unions, environmental extremists, etc. It is a “corporate campaign” in the classic sense, where interest groups are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community. (In fact, we are going to be sending you some additional information in the near future about the scope and objectives of this campaign.) Frankly, these efforts are simply the result of how effective we have been in opposing Card Check, as well as aspects of proposed healthcare, capital market and climate change legislation that we believe would be onerous to business and impede job creation.

Our efforts to fix these key pieces of legislation are not going to stop — business needs health care reform that focuses on reducing costs, we need (as our Capital Markets Commission Report over two years ago called for) modernization of financial regulation across-the-board, and we need and continue to call for comprehensive climate change legislation.

The Chamber staff will continue to work day in and day out to ensure the best possible outcomes for the economy and job creation. And we intend to continue being successful, so we expect the negative messages to your organization may continue. In all circumstances, I and other Chamber staff are available to provide you with more background on our policy positions, along with help in any responses that might be warranted. I do apologize, though, for any annoyance and inconvenience these efforts against us might cause you.

Thank you very much for your continued support.

Please let Tom Donohue or me know if you have any questions or comments.

Many thanks,
David Chavern
Chief Operating Officer

http://www.uschamber.com/chambers/091016chavern_message