From Conflict to Collaboration? Greenpeace’s Greenfreeze Campaign (Case Study)

                                          
Q1.  Set out the tactics used by Greenpeace in the Greenfreeze campaign. Can you explain the overall strategy used by the organization?

Sometimes the best way to get something done is to stand for it, no matter what.  Some of the main tactics that Greenpeace discovered that their leverage was greater when they target the big brands using refrigeration technology rather than the manufacturers, whose business tended not to deal very often with the end consumer. Exactly when Greenpeace involved the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games in its campaign , and targeted the Games sponsors.

Also Greenpeace played a pivotal role in matchmaking governmental agencies and international donors (such as the World Bank, the German Ministry for Development Aid, and the US Environmental Protection Agency) with key international and local manufacturers.

Greenpeace adopted an exclusive and aggressive strategy to control its message and protect its image. However, the overall strategy that Greenpeace uses is being creative and nonviolent to mobilize public opinion against the unsustainable practices of governments or corporations. This objective is to obtain as much coverage as possible through media in order to orient public opinion on certain issues.

Q2. To what extent would you say that Greenpeace had changed from conflict-based approach to a more collaborative mode of engagement?

Greenpeace raised a problem with most western countries due to a very aggressive  strategy that they used in the developing world to promote Greenfreeze. And that was the main reason that Greenpeace changed to a more collaborative approach which had been expressed in their dialogue.

 Q3. Who are Greenpeace stakeholders in this case? What responsibilities, if any, would you say that they had to these stakeholders?

Organizations like Greenpeace might work under a low budget and rely on donations from their stakeholders and on the relationships that they develop and dedicate to their volunteers and community members for their daily program and activity. Stakeholders here might include two groups, the first group are those who are already committed to work directly within the organization, such as the board members, volunteers and donors, and the second group are those who are in the community and are impacted by the organizations work.
The hard Job for any NGO is to determine how to balance the expectations of its various stakeholders. However, Greenpeace shall be more committed, reliable, and transparent in meeting all their stakeholders expectations. While the main responsibilities towards both groups can usually be found in the Greenpeace mission statement " Greenpeace is the leading independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future''

Q4. How would you assess Greenpeace’s relative advantages in pursuing the Greenfreeze
campaign compared to a company attempting to diffuse an innovation?

The fundamental approach that influences a new idea to be widely spread is the innovation itself, channels, time, and the system. Furthermore, for any innovation to be self-sustained it should be widely adopted by relying on a sufficient number of adopters to create more growth and sustainability.
When assessing a non-government organization like Greenpeace and a profit organization in terms of diffusing an innovative idea or product we must look at the main goal that stands behind both.  In the Greenpeace approach the consequences will include the impact of an innovation on others like (countries, states, organizations or social movements) rather than the organization itself. The results here are more related with issues of social prosperity.
In the profit or private approach the consequences will refer to the impact on a smaller group like  communities. Here innovations are more related to improve the quality of life.
Greenpeace had two main competitive advantages that highly contributed to their success:
1. Their  image and reputation: (Who ever follows Greenpeace would be considered as a friend of the environment).
2. Technology price: (Technology price was free).

Finally, positive and negative consequences are possible especially when an organization adopts an innovation. Also we must note that diffusion is difficult to measure and to quantify what exactly causes the adoption of an innovation.

Q5. What is the ethical way of behavior for North American manufacturers? Base your answers on nominal ethical theories discussed in course.

Based on the nominal ethical theories, i believe that there are several ways of behavior related to the North American manufacturers:
1. Egoism and Utilitarianism: If the North American manufacturers are only out there to generate profits, they should re-orient their strategies and create a utilitarian approach of thinking by  using an environment friendly technology.
2. Ethics of Duties: Based on this theory, companies can green wash by being proud of announcing their environmental friendly approach.