Comment Comment
Comment on the blogs Log in here Become a member Register now
 
Tim Smedley

Tim Smedley

17 Nov 2009 | 14:53

(Maximum of 120 characters)
Articles more than one month old can be viewed only by CIPD members or PM Subscribers.


The case of Grainger plc v Nicholson has already received a hell of a lot of coverage for extending the religion or belief discrimination regulations to cover belief in climate change. To summarise: the head of sustainability (Nicholson) was made redundant from property company (Grainger), and claims he was unfairly dismissed because of his belief in climate change.

But what really interests me is this – why does a company have a head of sustainability if it’s going to baulk over the incumbent’s belief that climate change is, you know, a bit bad, and that the firm should maybe try to do something to help the cause? We must, of course, point out that Grainger disputes this issue – its corporate affairs director Dave Butler told the Independent: "Grainger absolutely maintains that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence.”

Some rather illuminating points, however, did come out of the mud-slinging. John Bowers QC, arguing on behalf of the company, said: “What Mr Nicholson asserts is a scientific claim – that if we don't urgently cut carbon emissions we will not avoid catastrophic climate change. There is nothing philosophical about that.” Well, OK, but it pretty much sums up what you’d want your head of sustainability to believe, doesn’t it?

So let’s assume that Grainger is as green as the Jolly Green Giant, and that Nicholson was merely another victim of the recession. Even then, the case does raise the spectre that there may be one or two companies with sustainability or CR professionals, environmental plans, campaigns entitled “Let’s Go Green”, etc, that are, in fact, merely paying lip service for the sake of good PR. That, perhaps, such companies don’t fully believe the hype but are happy to let people with token job titles make it look like they do. The problem is, once you allow those token professionals to look into the issue, they will soon realise the scale of the problem, the paucity of the employer’s actions to tackle it and the urgent need for wide-scale change.

With the UN conference on climate change fast approaching, all these issues will soon be brought into sharp relief. Those companies who truly are green can add their signature to the Copenhagen Communiqué – a call from businesses for an international climate deal to be signed in Copenhagen this December. I’ve just checked – Grainger isn’t one of the signatories. Yet.

Comments

1. At 13:42 on 25 Nov 2009, Kirstie Quinnin wrote:

Thank you Tim for your thoughtful and provocative article. It all helps.
This links in to a discussion I had yesterday with a passionate environmentalist. He asked -what if employees could do more to force their employers to be serious about climate change? He'd heard about the recent ruling on Grainger v Nicholson and, like a number of people devoted to the cause of getting us to get serious about what is happening to our planet, was thinking of radical and innovative ways to make this happen.

Call me cynical but I don't think this can be achieved through an environmental policy or a CSR department as the Grainger case would seem to imply! And as someone who has worked in organisations where such policies exist yet because of "financial constraints" only plain white paper can be recycled, I have evidenced this first hand.
So what stronger measures can be taken? Is it time for employees to get radical and demand change from their employers? Given this ruling and the recent "outing" of the worst offenders in the Guardian today, could we down tools and say no more? The law would say er...not so fast but are there some serious options that can be considered? Industrial action if you work for employers that repeatedly pollute or refuse to set targets? 9 day fortnights that could potentially reduce carbon emissions by 10%? Further legal actions as seen in Grainger v Nicholson?
It is clear change is still very much needed for employers (and most likely some employees) to take climate change seriously so I hope this is food for thought and leads to further debate and even more hopefully, action.
Report this post

 
 

About the editors

Claire Churchard

Claire Churchard

News and features writer on People Management

Claire Warren

Claire Warren

The deputy editor at People Management, looking after the features section

James Brockett

James Brockett

News editor at People Management

Jill Evans

Jill Evans

Legal editor on People Management

Rob MacLachlan

Rob MacLachlan

Editor of People Management

Tim Smedley

Tim Smedley

Features writer on People Management.

Apprenticeships that work

New guidance to help you in developing high-quality apprenticeships

Read the new CIPD guide

HRD Conference 2012

Add value to your business with practical L&D solutions from HRD

25-26 April. Find out more
Links open in new window
 
People Management neither recommends, nor is responsible for, the content of external sites listed here.
Your link here: contact the PM sales team.

It’s untenable to have a normal retirement age in public-sector schemes that is significantly different from the state retirement age

Brian Bailey, Director of pensions, West Midlands Pension Fund and member of High Pay Commission