European Partners for the Environment (EPE) is a unique new entity on the Brussels scene. Formed in 1993 by chemical giant Dow Europe and the Brussels-based European Environment Bureau (EEB), EPE is not a lobby group but rather a forum for dialogue between social and environmental groups, public institutions, and industry (not necessarily the progressive type). EPE has organized meetings on specific topics upon request of the European Commission, but has made no attempt to attack the fact that the EU's overall direction will have strong negative effects on the environment and on people.
EPE membership is a mix of public authorities (such as the UN Environment Programme Europe), companies (many of them with less than sparkling environmental records, for example Ciba Geigy, Coca-Cola, Elf Aquitaine, ICI Polyurethanes, Monsanto Europe, Novo Nordisk, Petrofina, Procter & Gamble and Tetra Pak), trade unions (the European Trade Union Confederation, see chapter 4.2), and some of the more mainstream environmental organizations (including Stichting Natuur en Milieu from the Netherlands and World Wide Fund for Nature Europe). Other partners include environmental institutes and think tanks. The current President of EPE is Procter & Gamble's Peter Hindle, and the executive director is Raymond van Ermen, former head of the European Environment Bureau (see chapter 4.4). EPE is funded by corporations, various public authorities and national governments and the Directorate General of Environment (DGXI).
EPE is wary of coming across as an environmental mask for dirty industry. Its literature warns that »EPE is participating in the burgeoning movement toward strategic environmental alliances. However, it should not be confused with a white or greenwashing operation.«1 Members work in small groups on various themes, such as transport, tourism, agri-food, water, employment and trade. According to Executive Director Raymond van Ermen, »We do not come up with positions on Commission documents, but try to see how to move from words to actions, and how to secure better implementation [...] We are just focusing on very practical issues.«2 He believes that this will ultimately bring about substantial change in how member companies behave towards the environment. »Companies are never involved in debates in which they have to explain why they do what they do [...] It may take months, but I have seen companies that do move their positions.«3
The European Commission periodically asks EPE to convene seminars and dialogues on specific issues. For example, the Commission invited EPE to organize a seminar on »EU Policy on Global Trade and Environment« in May of 1996. Keynote speakers were Sir Leon Brittan (Commission Vice President and Trade Commissioner) and Ritt Bjerregaard (Commissioner for Environment). According to EPE, this meeting was »the start of a process of consultation with the Commission on further integration of trade, environment, and development objectives, policies and practices.«4
As with the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (see chapter 2.8), EPE membership can surely be viewed as a useful public relations exercise for corporations. Nonetheless, it can also be argued that on specific policies, concrete and positive cooperation between business and environmentalists is possible and useful. Many EPE industry representatives are among the most progressive in a given company, and according to Van Ermen, »The big transnational corporations have many internal conflicts [...] Within a company you can have one branch or unit fighting to move towards sustainability, and in the same company others fighting for another strategy. This is why we need to make alliances with individuals to be more productive.«5
Some Environmental Citizens' Organizations (ECOs) also find bodies such as EPE useful as a forum for insight into the world of business and industry. Ewa Charkiewicz of Tools for Transition says that »EPE seems an interesting space to learn more about the corporate mindset and culture, the scope for manoeuvre they have from within, and how much they can be pushed. All of this can be much more difficult to find out from the position of a total outsider.«6
In general, it can be argued that exercises like EPE are useful on a micro-level. However, macro-level discussions - for example about the current general direction that the European Union is heading - are not on the agenda in bodies such as EPE. One environmentalist has called this type of partnership a »decapitating body« - by focusing the efforts and energy of the environmental movement on ways to implement specific, limited policy changes, the necessity for a major systemic overhaul is left unchallenged. It has been shown that corporations can become slowly and progressively less polluting and destructive in certain areas. But large companies by nature possess internal necessities -- for ever-increasing profits, for cheap production through automation and efficiency, for inexpensive labour through low wages -- will stand in direct contradiction to the goals of the environmental and other social movements. In fact, TNCs of the type belonging to EPE are structurally incapable of making substantial changes: increased competition in the European and global economic arenas does not allow such distractions from their ultimate goal of wealth creation. And such inconsistencies can never be seriously addressed in polite fora such as European Partners for the Environment.
1. EPE, Catalyst for Change, undated. |back to text|
2. Personal interview with Raymond van Ermen, Brussels, 28 February 1997. |back to text|
3. Ibid. |back to text|
4. EPE, Catalyst for Change, undated. |back to text|
5. Personal interview with Raymond van Ermen, Brussels, 28 February 1997. |back to text|
6. Correspondence, 25 February 1997. |back to text|