「我們需要更好的機制來確保經濟活動不會臧害環境。」畢夏普博士說道：「採礦和石油公司、公共事業和農業綜合企業、開發銀行等類似的機構，都有涉入一些不利於環境（有時也不利於在地社區）的計畫；不過問題是，我們是否容許這些企業去開發保育優先性較低的區域，來補償他們在一些保育優先性較高區域所從事的地貌復原和保育投資？」

　　環保人士要如何知道他們合作的公司不是只是為了要沾點環保的顏色才一起合作的呢？世界自然基金會（WWF）企業溝通經理人的拉夫葛洛夫承認說：「這是很複雜的問題。」在1990年代，WWF英國分會的一項淡水計畫曾接受匯豐銀行提供2,000萬美金的資助，而因此備受其他保育團體的批評。

　　「我們與願意幫助我們的企業合作。但是如果我們要和企業合作，我們還是會很小心的選擇我們支持的對象。我們還是有一些絕對不碰的領域，例如煙草、動物實驗等。」拉夫葛洛夫如此表示。

　　他說，WWF對與企業合作向來是非常的謹慎的，他們會先和外部顧問合作，評估任何未來可能合作的企業在環保上的表現，此外，WWF也保留了批評其企業評論的權力。「那些願意接受『企業社會責任』（CSR）的企業也瞭解這對他們而言是有利的。有一股推動企業的壓力存在，讓他們不僅僅是要固守股東和消費者權益而已，還必須顧及更高道德標準的產品與政策。」

　　壓力也可能直接來自於股東。雖然「道德投資」已走了幾十年的歷史，我們現在已有更新的工具和評鑑制度，來幫助這股社會責任投資的潮流。

　　近幾年來，我們已可見到「非財務」評鑑機構與「倫理股票市場指數」的興起。主要的資產管理人也開始觀察生物多樣性的實質內涵，銀行也開始研究在放款業務中納入永續考量的可能性。

　　舉例來說，超過25個金融機構已經採納「赤道原則」。這套自發性的指導原則，係以世界銀行發展本身的政策與程序為基礎，可用來協助評估、管理各銀行貸款計畫的環境及社會風險因子。

　　許多企業都已看到與環境組織合作帶來的近期及遠期利益。例如說，殼牌企業就和IUCN互調資深階層的工作人員。根據殼牌的環境顧問賽克博士（Dr. Richard Sykes）表示，這種互調對企業很有利。

殼牌太陽公司加州卡邁里羅工廠的機器人在生產光電元件。（照片提供：殼牌太陽公司）

　　「我們很重視我們對環境的承諾，因為這有助於達成我們的企業目標。」賽克博士說：「我們就別拐彎抹角了，我們也都知道殼牌公司是為讓股東有不錯的獲利而存在。但我們的世界的方向是往哪裡去呢？我們最近的策略顯示，我們正朝向一個被二氧化碳包圍的世界。現在使用汽車、飛機的消費者，已開始要求更乾淨的產品、液化天然氣、低硫燃料、還有再生能源。」

　　「短期內我們還是會加強石油及天然氣的開發，因為目前為止這是最便宜及最易取得的能量。但是在2010年後，這個部分的開放將會逐漸縮小。」

　　應該會有許多讀者閱讀此文時會懷疑殼牌企業的目的，但畢竟殼牌企業也明說了，他們會在未來10年類提升約30%的石油還有天然氣開發，在怎說這都是最便宜又最容易取得的能源。同時，雖然殼牌已同意不會在世界遺產場址進行任何的活動，它們卻尚未同意在IUCN一級到四級保護區也採取同樣的政策。

　　所以說，企業會不會達成良好的企業形象之後就會回復到以往的惡習？「我是一個樂觀主義者，而非犬儒之徒。」畢夏普博士說：「認為所有企業只會在有壓力的時候才有行動，並不是一個很準確的看法。商標對一個企業而言極為重要，而一個商標的價值是建立在企業形象上的。許多的公司和企業家都想要用它們良心、員工、社區、和股東都可接受的方法去賺錢。的確有些公司仍不斷傷害環境、漠視社會需要，但已經有越來越多的企業願意去做正確的事情了。」(全文完)

"We need better mechanisms to ensure that economic activities are not detrimental to the environment," said Dr. Bishop. "Mining and petroleum companies, utilities and agribusiness, development banks and many others are all involved in projects that negatively impact on habitat and sometimes also on local communities. The question is whether companies should be granted access to certain low-priority areas in return for landscape restoration and conservation investments in high-priority conservation sites."

How can conservationists be sure that the companies they work with aren’t merely seeking a greenwash? "It is complex," admits Dax Lovegrove, company relations manager for WWF-UK, which was heavily criticized by other conservation organizations in the 1990s when it accepted US$20 million from HSBC to fund a freshwater program.

"We work with business when it helps us in our work. If we are going to take a cooperative approach with business then we have to be very selective about who we show public support for. We have certain no-go areas, such as tobacco and animal testing."

WWF operates a "due diligence" approach, which means that it works with external consultants to assess the environmental performance of any company it is considering getting involved with, and, says Lovegrove, WWF reserves the right to criticize business partners when it sees fit. "Companies that undertake Corporate Social Responsibility realize that it is good for them. There is pressure pushing companies from their stakeholders and consumers for more ethical products and policies."

Pressure can also come directly from company shareholders. Although ethical investing goes back many decades, new instruments and metrics are helping mainstream socially responsible investing.

Recent years have thus seen the emergence of non-financial rating agencies and ethical stock market indices. Leading asset managers are looking into the materiality of biodiversity. Banking institutions, more generally, are also looking into the sustainability of their lending operations.

Over 25 financial institutions have, for instance, adopted the Equator Principles. Based on the World Bank group's policies and procedures, these voluntary guidelines help evaluate and manage environmental and social risks in project financing.

Companies see both short and long term benefits from working with environmental organizations. For example, Shell has already exchanged staff on work placements at senior level with IUCN. According to Dr. Richard Sykes, Shell's group environmental adviser, this makes good business sense.

Shell Solar manufacturing robots frame the laminate of cells at Shell's factory in Camarillo, California. (Photo courtesy Shell Solar)

"We take our environmental commitment seriously because it contributes towards our business objectives," he said. "Let's not beat about the bush about why Shell is here. We are here to provide a good return for our shareholders. And where is the world headed? Our latest strategy tells us we are headed towards a carbon-constrained world. Customers using cars and planes are demanding ever-cleaner products, liquefied natural gas, low-sulphur fuels and renewables."

"In the short term we are going to grow oil and gas production because it is still the cheapest and most available source of energy. But after 2010 that sector is going to be suppressed."

No doubt many will read this article with an underlying scepticism about Shell's intentions. After all, Shell makes no secret that, since oil and gas are the cheapest and most available sources of energy, production will increase by around 30 per cent over the next 10 years. And the company, while promising not to conduct any operations in World Heritage sites, hasn't yet agreed a similar policy with regard to protected areas in IUCN categories one to four.

So, when a business gets good publicity will they simply revert to the bad old ways? "I'm an optimist, not a cynic," said Dr. Bishop. "To suppose that all companies only act when they are under pressure just isn't accurate. Brands are enormously important to business and the value of a brand depends on reputation. Many companies and entrepreneurs want to make money in ways that is acceptable to their conscience, their employees, the community around them and to their shareholders. While there's no question that some companies out there continue to harm the environment and neglect social needs, more and more of them want to do the right thing."