- Founded more than 50 years ago to protest nuclear testing, Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s most influential environmental groups. Greenpeace is best known for its attention-grabbing, non-violent direct actions to pressure companies and governments, but the organization also employs a variety of other tactics, from in-depth research to strategic engagement, to drive change.
- Greenpeace’s power is such that when it mobilizes a campaign against a target around a specific issue, even the mightiest of companies finds it difficult to ignore. This approach has pushed a number of Fortune 500 companies to enact a range of policies, from how they source commodities to how they produce energy. Greenpeace campaigns have pressured governments to disclose data on deforestation, carbon emissions, and fishing practices.
- In an interview with Mongabay founder Rhett A. Butler, Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan discussed Greenpeace’s approach, including when it decides to pursue broader cultural change instead of corporate and government targets.
- “While politics and leaders certainly can influence culture and norms, we believe culture has much more influence on politics and leaders,” she said. “Where culture goes, politicians either follow or lose elections, and companies either change or go bankrupt.”
Founded more than 50 years ago to protest nuclear testing, Greenpeace has grown to become one of the world’s most influential environmental groups, campaigning on a wide range of issues around the world. Greenpeace is best known for its attention-grabbing, non-violent direct actions to pressure companies and governments, but the organization also employs a variety of other tactics, from in-depth research to strategic engagement, to drive change. Greenpeace’s activism has attracted a legion of volunteers and grassroots donors who complement the organization’s 4,000 staff spread across more than two dozen field offices in more than 50 countries.
Greenpeace’s power is such that when it mobilizes a campaign against a target around a specific issue, even the mightiest of companies finds it difficult to ignore. This approach has pushed a number of Fortune 500 companies — from Unilever to Nestlé to McDonalds — to enact a range of policies, from how they source commodities to how they produce energy. Greenpeace campaigns have pressured governments to disclose data on deforestation, carbon emissions, and fishing practices.
But Greenpeace’s activism has also attracted some powerful enemies: its offices around the world have been raided, companies have sued it, and staff and volunteers have been arrested.
Those efforts haven’t slowed Greenpeace’s work, though. Nor have they colored the organization’s willingness to engage with companies or governments in the long run: Greenpeace prides itself on not holding grudges.
“Greenpeace has no permanent friends or foes,” Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan told Mongabay during a February 2020 interview. “If a government or company is willing to change, we will work with them to achieve their aims, but if they regress or break promises, we will hold them to account.”
Morgan has headed Greenpeace International, the Amsterdam-based organization that oversees Greenpeace’s mostly autonomous regional offices, since April 2016. Prior to that, she served as the global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute (WRI) and other leadership positions at E3G and WWF. In those roles, Morgan has attended every United Nations climate change conference (COP) since the first one in Berlin in 1995, which has given her deep insight into climate policy and the eventual creation of the Paris Agreement in 2015.
From that vantage point, she says that Greenpeace’s formula for directly targeting companies and governments works best when the objective is relatively narrowly defined. For broader issues, Greenpeace focuses on influencing culture.
“Greenpeace has traditionally focused our advocacy work on changing laws, governments and corporate behavior to achieve environmental and peaceful outcomes. This has worked well historically to address more specific and defined issues, with clear causes, affects and decision-makers to influence,” she said. “With complex global challenges like biodiversity loss, climate change and social issues the pathway to successful change is too complicated to understand and influence. In these situations Greenpeace believes working to influence and change mindsets is the most effective way to achieve lasting large scale change. As mindsets change, they will pull social norms, political opinions and consumer behavior along with them.
“While politics and leaders certainly can influence culture and norms, we believe culture has much more influence on politics and leaders. Where culture goes, politicians either follow or lose elections, and companies either change or go bankrupt.”
As an example, Morgan cites zero-deforestation policies, which Greenpeace helped set in motion in the late 2000s after a campaign against deforestation for soy production in the Amazon. Within a decade, more than 360 companies, spanning palm oil to wood pulp, had made such commitments, but almost none had actually stopped deforestation in their supply chains by 2020.
“Corporate supply chains for palm oil and other forest and ecosystem risk commodities remain exposed to deforestation and ecosystem destruction, fires and human rights violations,” she said. “We need decisive government action that makes complete transparency and the monitoring of supply chains a condition of trade and finance. This starts with strict due diligence regulations that require financiers and importers to provide proof that products entering global markets are not linked to forest and ecosystem destruction or human rights abuses.”
“Creating a better world is within our reach, but it requires global cooperation at unprecedented levels. It will require system change, not half-baked tweaks. It requires new rules and new investments, not saving the old failed system via adaptation or reform.”
Morgan talked about activism, driving systemic transformation, and more during a conversation with Mongabay founder Rhett A. Butler.
AN INTERVIEW WITH JENNIFER MORGAN
What originally prompted your interest in environmental issues and how did your career path unfold?
Jennifer Morgan: My initial interest in environmental issues comes from my childhood, where I was lucky enough to be able to play outside and go camping with my older sister. She has gone on to be a professor in Environmental Studies, while I studied International Relations and Political Science.
In the 1990s I was a fellow at the German environment ministry and from there I kickstarted my non-profit career with a coordinator role at the US Climate Action Network in Washington D.C. and went on to take up various roles at the World Resources Institute, E3G and WWF. My climate diplomacy badge of honor is that I have participated in every COP meeting since the first in Berlin in 1995! I was also a Review Editor for the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Before joining Greenpeace International you were the global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. What have you taken from your experience at WRI into your role at Greenpeace?
While at WRI, I was part of the long behind-the-scenes groundwork that informed the creation of the Paris Agreement, as WRI conducted workshops with a diverse range of people across the world – from faith groups, businesses, grassroots groups, academics and so on. Throughout the run up to and during Paris, I experienced the huge need for the environmental movement to come together more coherently in all it’s diverse and joyous glory. Into my role at Greenpeace, therefore, I brought this need to ensure that Greenpeace, as a big global organization, also exists to embrace and empower the green movement from the ground up and amplifying the voices of those on the climate frontline. My career experience has been more focussed on climate diplomacy than physical climate activism, so I brought hope for non-violent direct action into my role as Executive Director as well!
From my personal viewpoint, it seems like Greenpeace has become more research and data-oriented over the past 10-20 years. Is that a fair assessment? And if so, what has driven that shift?
Bearing witness with peaceful direct action is central to the mission of Greenpeace, while we have always done research and investigations, such as showing the public images of whales being killed in the 1970s to the Unearthed news platform. From the beginning, Greenpeace has aimed to be at the forefront of innovation in order to get the voices of the most vulnerable heard in the media and in the halls of systemic power. Speaking truth to this type of power has always been a risky business, which we have long witnessed with the shrinking of civil society space. It is therefore crucial to ensure we can get out important factual scientific information about our planet, be it through our non-violent direct actions, our research, our social media channels, or where the Greenpeace platform is accessed by an ally and their credited research and data.
Government policies and corporate behavior are at the root of many environmental problems. What is Greenpeace’s theory of change when it comes to shifting policy or pushing companies to change their practices?
Greenpeace has traditionally focused our advocacy work on changing laws, governments and corporate behavior to achieve environmental and peaceful outcomes. This has worked well historically to address more specific and defined issues, with clear causes, affects and decision makers to influence. Greenpeace has no permanent friends or foes: if a government or company is willing to change, we will work with them to achieve their aims, but if they regress or break promises, we will hold them to account.
With complex global challenges like biodiversity loss, climate change and social issues the pathway to successful change is too complicated to understand and influence. In these situations Greenpeace believes working to influence and change mindsets is the most effective way to achieve lasting large scale change. As mindsets change, they will pull social norms, political opinions and consumer behavior along with them. While politics and leaders certainly can influence culture and norms, we believe culture has much more influence on politics and leaders. Where culture goes, politicians either follow or lose elections, and companies either change or go bankrupt. Establishing a progressive, inclusive, compassionate, democratic and green-friendly culture is a stronger safeguard than law.
Greenpeace was at the forefront of the “Zero Deforestation” movement whereby companies in the second half of the 2000s started committing to eliminate deforestation, peatlands degradation, and human exploitation from their supply chains. We’re now more than a decade into the movement and progress on implementation hasn’t met ambitions. Where do you see the effort to get companies to take more responsibility for maintaining forests and oceans as healthy and productive ecosystems going from here?
It’s not enough to rely on voluntary commitments to zero deforestation. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the rules of the global economy. The climate crisis and the pandemic have made the urgency for this all the clearer.
We need strong policies promoting a truly sustainable economy that places public health and planetary health at the centre of decision-making. This should not include false solutions such as biofuels and all forms of carbon markets that allow pollution and deforestation to continue.
During the past decade, Greenpeace demanded ambitious zero deforestation across supply chains for commodities such as palm oil; corporations pushed back hard. As the largest consumer goods brands were targeted, one by one companies signed up, until eventually over 360 were on board. A decade later many of these same corporations admitted that they were nowhere near meeting the 2020 commitments and not one has been able to deliver on halting deforestation. Corporate supply chains for palm oil and other forest and ecosystem risk commodities remain exposed to deforestation and ecosystem destruction, fires and human rights violations. What we’ve been saying all along is that data and monitoring systems need to be publicly accessible, credible, verified and completely transparent.
We need decisive government action that makes complete transparency and the monitoring of supply chains a condition of trade and finance. This starts with strict due diligence regulations that require financiers and importers to provide proof that products entering global markets are not linked to forest and ecosystem destruction or human rights abuses. NGOs are already putting increased pressure on financiers such as BlackRock over links to deforestation and human rights abuses. Ultimately though this cannot be solved with voluntary action. We need a new legal framework that requires companies and financiers to be held accountable for the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss.
This is all only the start of the deep reform we need as how we trade requires a fundamental rethink and the pandemic is an opening for this shake up to occur. What’s urgently needed is the relocalization or reshoring of value chains. Relocalization is about strengthening the global community, while the current free trade scheme only works for powerful corporations, which are tied to 80% of global trade. More people are realizing this and calling for changes to how we trade, but the usual neoliberal suspects are shouting “protectionism” louder than before.
The health crisis, much like the climate emergency, is exposing the absurdity of putting profit before people and planet. With climate impacts hitting us daily, we need rational trade policies that take into account the human and environmental costs of how we consume, with an aim to have all of us living well within our planetary boundaries and not increasing trade at all costs. Otherwise, we are signing our own death warrant.
The government of the United States has been a laggard when it comes to environmental policy, especially over the past four years. And its response to COVID hasn’t given the world much confidence in its ability to effectively respond to crises. But we have a new administration now and Joe Biden has pledged to put climate at the center of his policy framework. What do you see as the top priorities for the U.S. to establish its credibility on the environmental front and drive real-world impact?
The world will take US climate and environmental leadership seriously when the US begins to take meaningful action at home.
With less than a decade left to prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis, President Biden must take action at the scale science and justice demands. That means embracing the vision of a Green New Deal and enacting policies to end the era of fossil fuel production. He’s already off to a strong start, but simply reversing the damage of the Trump era won’t be enough. To truly Build Back Better, the Biden administration must Build Back Fossil Free.
2020 was supposed to be a landmark year for international action on climate change, biodiversity, and forests, but the pandemic led to the postponement or cancellation of major summits as well as a range of setbacks for efforts to protect the environment, from rising commodity prices to increased crackdowns on civil society to economic hardship. Do you think the pandemic will ultimately be a catalyst for driving a shift away from environmentally damaging business-as-usual practices? And do you think COVID has caused companies and governments to more seriously consider the issues that underpin these global risks?
COVID-19 has changed the landscape of the world we currently live in. The pandemic also showed us that now is the time to really take a path of just and green recovery. Now, we have an unmissable chance to put people and the planet before private profit and power.
This will only happen when leaders face up to the causes of the interconnected medical, environmental, and economic crises we are facing. For that to happen the global economy and political elites must acknowledge how 2020 has brought into sharp focus the many things that are wrong with our current economic system.
Creating a better world is within our reach, but it requires global cooperation at unprecedented levels. It will require system change, not half-baked tweaks. It requires new rules and new investments, not saving the old failed system via adaptation or reform.
Without fundamental changes in trade or finance rules, for example, there can be no climate-resilient or just economic recovery. And without a shift in the hierarchy of norms of our decision making on the local, national and international level, public and planetary health will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of private profit.
What has been the impact of the pandemic on Greenpeace International itself?
The impacts of the pandemic are being defined by choices. Those choices should be based upon values, not value, which has always been Greenpeace’s way. We choose to focus on putting people and the planet first, as our values are compassion, courage and cooperation.
From a campaigning perspective, we have had to be more innovative and reactive than ever before – focusing a lot more on the digital space as face-to-face meetings are not possible. We have supported and participated in online demonstrations and provided digital campaigning toolkits to allies and activists, and have used social media in even cannier ways than before. We have had in-person non-violent direct action, where social distancing measures have been respected and masks worn.
Greenpeace is a family and we are facing our own COVID-19 challenges. Tragically, we have lost colleagues to the virus, and colleagues have lost family and friends. To help support people during this very tough time, Greenpeace International staff can avail of free 24/7 professional mental health counseling, an employment assistance program, time off as needed for self-care and caring for others, and flexible working. Our main office in Amsterdam remains closed, while other country offices have their own arrangements based on local laws and regulations.
One of the common criticisms of traditional environmentalism in some places is it hasn’t prioritized inclusivity and building a bigger constituency. How is Greenpeace working to address these concerns?
You are right and Greenpeace has been focusing more on bringing power back to the people, in order to create a positive systemic change from the ground up. We are increasingly working more closely with allies and people-powered movements, with the aim to – together – build more agency and counter power against the political and economical elite. Since Greenpeace was founded, we have believed that collective action by strong communities is the most effective way to bring about environmental protection.
To achieve a more sustainable future, we have to come together more and be kinder to each other within civil society. For a start, we can’t have a green and peaceful future without racial justice, equity, civil rights, and empowered communities. Overcoming the climate crisis means overcoming systemic injustice. To go about this is by embracing the intersectionality of these systemic injustices and inequalities – climate impacts, economic, racial, educational, gender – and using this knowledge as the foundation for sustainable, inclusive solutions and way forward.
As Greenpeace, for example, we offer to train young leaders to become environment heroes; run activism workshops, make our platform available to grassroots groups so their voices are heard loud and clear, disperse anti-racism toolkits for environmentalists, champion multilateralism and democracy, and work with diverse allies from trade unions to student organizations to faith groups with whom we share the common mission to create a greener, safer, fairer world.
What would you say to young people who are distressed about the current trajectory of the planet?
Take a deep breath and think to yourself “where can I make the biggest difference?” A lot of distress comes from a place of feeling helpless or hopeless, but if you can channel that energy into making change for the better, you will not only feel less distressed but you will be bringing positive change to the world. It is hard to stay optimistic, no doubt, but a big part of my job is being a stubborn patient optimist because I wake up everyday wanting change to happen.
Young people active in the movement are making a huge difference – I see it every day, and I hope that if you are one of the brave courageous youth taking climate action, you feel the difference you are making. There is so much at stake for the future of young people today, but alongside the collective anxiety is the collective hope. Young people have managed to pull together across the world and I am so grateful for all of the work, time and effort millions of them – you – have put into saving our beautiful planet.
