Greenpeace | Greenwashing Aarhus Convention The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, usually known as the Aarhus Convention, was signed on 25 June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus. It entered into force on 30 October 2001. As of March 2014, it has 47 parties—46 states and the European Union.[1] All of the ratifying states are in Europe and Central Asia. The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights regarding access to information, public participation and access to justice, in governmental decision-making processes on matters concerning the local, national and transboundary environment. Content[edit] General features[edit] The Aarhus Convention is a rights-based approach: the public, both in the present and in future generations, have the right to know and to live in a healthy environment. The Three Pillars[edit] Access to information: any citizen should have the right to get a wide and easy access to environmental information.
March Against Monsanto Green gross domestic product The green gross domestic product (green GDP) is an index of economic growth with the environmental consequences of that growth factored into a country's conventional GDP. Green GDP monetizes the loss of biodiversity, and accounts for costs caused by climate change. Some environmental experts prefer physical indicators (such as "waste per capita" or "carbon dioxide emissions per year"), which may be aggregated to indices such as the "Sustainable Development Index". Calculating Green GDP[edit] Calculating green GDP requires that net natural capital consumption, including resource depletion, environmental degradation, and protective and restorative environmental initiatives, be subtracted from traditional GDP.[1] Some early calculations of Green GDP take into account one or two, but not all environmental adjustments. Rationale[edit] The motivation for creating a Green GDP originates from the inherent limitations of GDP has as an indicator of economic performance and social progress.
Occupy Monsanto Social responsibility Social responsibility is an ethical theory that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act to benefit society at large. Social responsibility is a duty every individual has to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems. A trade-off may[citation needed] exist between economic development, in the material sense, and the welfare of the society and environment. Critics argue that Corporate social responsibility (CSR) distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing; others argue that it is an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful corporations though there is no systematic evidence to support these criticisms. Student social responsibility[edit] Student social responsibility is the responsibility of every student for his/her actions. Corporate social responsibility[edit] See also[edit] Notes[edit] References[edit]
March Against Monsanto March Against Monsanto, Vancouver, Canada; May 25, 2013 The March Against Monsanto is an international grass roots movement as well as a protest against the Monsanto corporation and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).[1] The initial march took place on May 25, 2013. The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"[4] and the organizers' estimate of "two million"[5] were variously cited. Events took place in between 330[3] and 436[5] cities around the world, mostly in the United States.[3][6][7] Canal said that the movement would continue its "anti-GMO cause" beyond the initial event,[5] and a second march occurred on October 12, 2013.[8] A third march is planned for 24 May 2014.[9] GMO controversy and Monsanto[edit] Monsanto, headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri, is the largest producer of genetically engineered seed. Origin of the protests[edit] California Proposition 37[edit] Founder Tami Canal, March Against Monsanto, Salt Lake City, Utah
Sullivan principles The Sullivan principles are the names of two corporate codes of conduct, developed by the African-American preacher Rev. Leon Sullivan, promoting corporate social responsibility: The original Sullivan principles were developed in 1977 to apply economic pressure on South Africa in protest of its system of apartheid.[1] The principles eventually gained wide adoption among United States–based corporations. For more, see #The Sullivan principles below.The new global Sullivan principles were jointed unveiled in 1999 by Rev. The Sullivan principles[edit] In 1977, Rev. Sullivan, looking back on his anti-Apartheid efforts, recalled: “Starting with the work place, I tightened the screws step by step and raised the bar step by step. The original principles[edit] The Sullivan principles, introduced in 1977 with one addition in 1984, consisted of seven requirements a corporation was to demand for its employees as a condition for doing business. The principles read: Mixed success[edit] See also[edit]
Deep Green Resistance Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is an environmental movement that views mainstream environmental activism as being largely ineffective.[1] DGR also refers to the strategy described by the movement for saving the Earth. DGR believes that industrial civilization is endangering all life on the planet, and that a broad range of tactics are needed to achieve environmental and social justice in decisive material ways. It advocates for a radical shift in society's structure and function and calls for humans to actively fight for the Earth. DGR's goals are to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and to stop those in power from destroying the planet. DGR promotes the defense and restoration of landbases, and the recognition that most of the land belongs to indigenous peoples, who are suffering under foreign military occupation. Beliefs[edit] Origins and advocates[edit] The term was created for a conference entitled "Deep Green Resistance. Tactics[edit] Violent resistance[edit]
Ethical Positioning Index (EPI) EPI (Ethical Positioning Index) is an Index which measures, how ethically a brand is positioned. Ethics have been a highly debated and controversial element in branding exercises. Marketers' opinion on this aspect have been varied from time to time. Using ethical practices to build brand equity and brand positioning have been taken by different marketing experts, differently based on their cultural, ethical value system. Sagar et al.,[1] through their research in this area, came up with an innovative framework to measure the ethical positioning through an index called EPI (Ethical positioning Index).
Deep Green Resistance Wisconsin Equality impact assessment An equality impact assessment (EqIA) is a process designed to ensure that a policy, project or scheme does not discriminate against any disadvantaged or vulnerable people.[citation needed] Definition[edit] The EqIA process aims to prevent discrimination against people who are categorised as being disadvantaged or vulnerable within society.[citation needed] These categories are called equality target groups (ETGs) and are currently designated by the Greater London Authority as: women;black, Asian and ethnic-minority people;young people and children;older people;disabled people;Lesbian people, gay people, bisexual people and transsexual people; andpeople from different faith groups. Previous EqIAs have included other categories of people such as people on low incomes and Gypsies and Irish Travellers. Within the UK, EqIAs are still popular as a means of ensuring that the public-sector equality duty is met. Examples of EqIA in the UK[edit] London Low Emission Zone EqIA Crossrail EqIA See also[edit]
Technogaianism Technogaianism (a portmanteau word combining "techno-" for technology and "gaian" for Gaia philosophy) is a bright green environmentalist stance of active support for the research, development and use of emerging and future technologies to help restore Earth's environment. Technogaians argue that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should be an important goal of environmentalists.[1] Theory[edit] This point of view is different from the default position of radical environmentalists and a common opinion that all technology necessarily degrades the environment, and that environmental restoration can therefore occur only with reduced reliance on technology. While many environmentalists still contend that most technology is detrimental to the environment, technogaians point out that it has been in humanity's best interests to exploit the environment mercilessly until fairly recently. The theories of English writer Fraser Clark may be broadly categorised as technogaian.