Jared Diamond who wrote “Guns, Germs and Steel” and “Collapse” has penned an op-ed piece in New York Times, arguing that not all MNCs are 'environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits'.

He went on to list the examples of beneficial environmental practices from three corporations: Wal Mart, Coca Cola & Chevron, and argued that critics of these business are biased or have unjust opinions about them. With Wal Mart, he notes that the company is saving fuel costs in various ways such as doubling the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet. As for Coca Cola, he claims the company is engaged in preserving water including their conservation efforts in sites where they operate such as Rio Grande, Yangtze, Mekong and Danube — all of them sites of major environmental concerns besides supplying water for Coca-Cola. And lastly for Chevron, he writes, 'Not even in any national park have I seen such rigorous environmental protection as I encountered in five visits to new Chevron-managed oil fields in Papua New Guinea. (Chevron has since sold its stake in these properties to a New Guinea-based oil company.)' (more after jump)

True or false? Given that I have no access to the decision-makers in these corporations, I have no way of verifying Professor Diamond's claims. But even if these claims are true and that these measures are implemented, it does not mean we should give these MNCs a free pass.

Not too long ago, The National Labor Committee released a report detailing Wal Mart's policy of punishing workers who are sick. The organisation claims that by forcing employees to come to work, Wal Mart increases  the risks of a swine flu contagion. In July, the super- retailer also claims that it was going to create a sustainability index for its products. Turns out. it's not happening. Plus, it had to settle with employees over disagreements on on hours and working wages. It took workers 8 years after filing this lawsuit to get money 'not fully paid for ‘off the clock’ work, rest breaks, and meal breaks'. In India, Coca Cola was accused by farmers of operating in drought-prone areas. According to a New Delhi-based environmental NGO, The Environmental Research Institute (TERI), which released a report last year, it asserts that 'Coca-Cola's operations in Kala Dera "would continue to be one of the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of stress to the communities around". Or referring to Corporate Accountability in an April press release condemning the MNC's glossy PR efforts, 'Much of Coke’s green PR centers on a murky concept called “water neutrality” which may turn out to be yet another Madoffian ponzi scheme allowing Coke to rob Peter to pay Paul, as it were: running one community dry to hydrate another. And given Coke’s track record, the scheme has critics asking, “should we really be entrusting the distribution of water resources to private corporations?” As for Chevron, one could refer to EarthRights International reports on the company's complicity of human rights abuses in Burma. In a September 2009 report, the NGO argues that the PR efforts to clean up the company's reputation did not result in any improvements. It notes that the organisation's Corporate Engagement Project (CDA) was flawed and that forced labour is still prevalent in the areas that the company is operating in.

And these are just a few controversial cases that these organisations are embroiled in. Can Big Business particularly MNCs do the right thing? Professor Diamond seems to think so. Given that he has the privy to access to these exeutives, I would urge him to listen to what NGOs and workers have to say. Has he raised any of these issues (amongst the many) to the executives or board of directors that he was able to meet up with? It is easy to give big business the benefit of the doubt sometimes especially when they innundate us with their major PR campaigns. More often than not, these efforts are nothing more than whitewashing their misdeeds.