Why the Greens should love Big Brother

Our ever-watched society is good news for the environment.

Last month, Lord Alan Sugar’s digital signage business Amscreen launched the OptimEyes system; screens that will watch you as you watch them - analysing your face and recording your age, gender and location.  This is the latest advance in technology that generates more and more insights into what makes us tick – the holy grail for market-hungry brand managers.

Whilst this might feel invasive and evoke images of a big brother society, there’s a flip-side to this abundance of information: the exponential growth of digital processing power seen over the last decade is also giving global citizens access to knowledge that in the past brands probably would have preferred remained buried in complex, global supply chains.

For instance, mobile phone apps such as Barcoo have pioneered bringing information about everyday products to European smartphone users through the simple scan of a barcode.

Going one step further is Carrotmob, a digital platform that allows individuals to come together in groups to spend money to support a business in return for them making an improvement that people care about.

Then there are businesses such as Honest By, who claim to be the world’s first 100 per cent transparent business.  Established by designer Bruno Pieter, the site sells fashion items where full details of sources, cost and even retail mark-up are freely available.

So, why is this move towards ultra-transparency good news for sustainability? Two key reasons. First - by giving civil society a voice, digital platforms are allowing debates about important social issues, which in turn are encouraging businesses to be more accountable as they realise the sheer impossibility of controlling their messages.  Last year, the sponsors of the 2012 Olympic Games wanted to tell the world how proud they were to support the Olympics.  Campaigning platform 38 Degrees wanted to tell the world how these blue chip companies were choosing to take a (legal) tax break.  Guess whose voice won?

Secondly, ultra-transparency is prompting business to scrutinise what really happens in their supply chain.  This can only be a good thing, if in the future it prevents bute-tainted horsemeat from being added to beef products heading for human consumption. The Sustainability Consortium (TSC), for example, brings together diverse global players like retail giant Walmart and many other household names to develop transparent methodologies and strategies for a new generation of products which address environmental, social and economic challenges. 

Of course, digitally-driven campaigns have their detractors.  There are those who believe it is nothing short of dangerous to use social media to create policy.  Avaaz.org is a digital campaigning community which attracted 2,419,077 signatories in just 36 hours supporting an EU-wide ban of neonicotinoid pesticides, linked to the dramatic fall in bee populations globally.  Enraged experts, including the United Kingdom’s National Farmers Union, warned of catastrophic crop losses without the pesticide.

This is, of course, the point about sustainability. It is complex and there often isn’t one "right" answer - a set of interventions are needed to truly solve a problem.

At Forum for the Future, we describe a sustainable business as one that is commercially successful and delivers goods and services that have a social value - all within environmental limits (or one planet’s worth of resources, not the current three in the UK, five in the US).  Whilst Lord Sugar’s OptimEyes might feel like a step closer to losing the personal data we hold dear, radical transparency is overall a positive driver towards this. 

By driving companies to assume responsibility for aspects of their supply chain which previously they may have been content to leave with suppliers at best - hidden at worst - we will see standards rise. And as the voice of the general public gets louder, businesses will be encouraged to deliver on their wider responsibilities to both society and the environment.

With more people watching, business become more accountable. Photograph: Getty Images

Sally Uren is the Chief Executive of Forum for the Future

Getty
Show Hide image

What Labour MPs who want to elect the shadow cabinet are forgetting

The idea is to push Jeremy Corbyn to build an ideologically broad team, but it distracts from the real hurdle – management.

Labour MPs who have been critical of Jeremy Corbyn are pushing to vote for shadow cabinet members – rather than having all the posts appointed by the leader.

Most of the parliamentary Labour party who are not Corbyn loyalists believe this should be the “olive branch” he offers them, in order to put his recent words about “unity” and “wiping the slate clean” into action.

Corbyn and his allies have refused to consider such an idea outside of a “wider” democratisation of the party – saying that Labour members should also get a say in who’s on the frontbench. It’s also thought Corbyn is reluctant due to the shadow cabinet having three representatives on the National Executive Committee. He wouldn’t want his opponents voting for those, tipping the balance of the Committee back towards centrists.

Shadow cabinet elections were a longstanding convention for Labour in opposition until Ed Miliband urged the party to vote against them in 2011. Labour MPs on different wings of the party believe a return to the system would avoid Labour’s frontbench being populated solely by Corbyn’s ideological wing.

But there is a complication here (aside from the idea of a party leader having to run an effective opposition with their opponents in key shadow cabinet positions).

Proponents of shadow cabinet elections say they would help to make Labour a broad church. But really they could put those in the “make-it-work” camp who initially helped form Corbyn’s team in a difficult position. Initially conciliatory MPs like Thangam Debonnaire and Heidi Alexander have since left their posts, revealing frustration more at Corbyn’s management style than policy direction. Chi Onwurah MP, who remains a shadow minister, has also expressed such concerns.

One senior Labour MP points out that the problem with shadow cabinet elections lies in those who left Corbyn’s shadow cabinet but had wanted to cooperate – not in bringing ideological opponents into the fold.

“There were lots of people on his team who actually liked Jeremy, and wanted to make policy with him,” they tell me. “And many of them eventually felt they had to leave because of how difficult it was to work with him. They wanted to stay but couldn’t. If people like that couldn’t stay, will they go back? It will be much harder for him to show them he can work differently.”

One of the “make-it-work” faction voices their concern about returning to the shadow cabinet via elections for this reason. “A lot of us [who left] are still really interested in our policy areas and would be happy to help if they asked,” they say. “But it was too difficult to be taken seriously when you were actually in those shadow cabinet meetings.”

My source describes a non-collegiate approach in meetings around the shadow cabinet table, where Corbyn would read out pre-written opening statements and responses when they delivered their ideas. “It was like he wasn’t really listening.”

The plan to reintroduce shadow cabinet elections barely left the ground in a meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee on Saturday night, on the eve of Labour conference.

This is in spite of Labour MPs urging the NEC to make a decision on the matter soon. Jon Ashworth, an NEC member and shadow minister, told me shortly after Corbyn’s victory speech that this would be “a good way of bringing people back” in to the team, and was determined to “get some resolution on the issue” soon.

It doesn’t look like we’ll get that yet. But for some who have already tried serving on the frontbench, it’s a distraction from what is for them a management – rather than an ideological – problem.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.