viewpoint E b u n d S. Muskie US.Seiiiitor front Maine
Corporate responsibilities include environment The environmental honeymoon is over. The days of rhetoric are fading, the surge of niultipage advertising supplements is ebbing, and the glow of togetherness and cooperation may be on the wane. We saw an early and welcome spurt of enthusiasm-by students, corporations, and public officials. That enthusiasni created great expectations. Students thought they had at last found an issue that could embrace all Americans in an effort to reclaim and restore the society. Corporations thought that their expressions of concern and announcements of plans for action could remake images tarnished by years of neglect. Public officials thought that the time had finally come when the public would support expensive programs to restore the environment-and, not incidentally, support them for their efforts. Now studet have gone back to the war, industries are turning to other advertising themes. and public officials are filling fewer pages of the Congressional Record with environniental statements. And our air, and water, and land? They are still waiting for the kind of attention they deserve. The visibility of the environmental movement may have declined, but the public will not forget the promises that were made during that honeymoon. To a great extent, the leadership in moving to reclaim our environment must come from government. It is the business of government to regulate industries and to inform the public of health hazards-no matter which companies may be hurt. But it must also be the business of corporations to become involved in the environmental effort and to eliminate the barriers of distrust which exist between corporations and so many Americans. American corporations can look forward to more and more movements like Campaign OM. Most supporters of Campaign GM-and 1 supported that effortdid not see it as a blind assault on corporate practices, but rather as a direct appeal to corporate consciences. A corporate response of increased adgertising md public relations efforts is not an adequate answer to that appeal. Students and other concerned Americans can tell the difference between an advertising budget and a research budget. The corporate response must change, but all of us know that corporations-liie the government-are institutions, an& institutions do not talk or tkhk or respond
by tliemsslces. They niust be made to respond-by people in and out of the corporale structure. Campaign G M was an illustration of how people outside the corporation can apply pressure for change. I supported that effort because I felt that the pressure was appropriarely applied, General Motors and the automotile industry had not met their responsibility to control automotive emissions. The rime has come to put an end to the notion that cur corporations live lives of their own, surviving on profits made at the expense of our human and natural environments. For these who insist that corporations niust do more to protect and enhance the environment. thc road will not be easy. E. B. White wrote some years ago: People are beginning IO suspect that the greatesi freedom is riot achieved by sheer irresponsibility. The earth is common ground and W P are its overlords, whethzr we hold title or not. Gradually the iden is taking form that the knd must be held in snfe-keeping,that one generalion is to some extent rr?spon.v!blefor the next, and ihat it i.f contrary lo ?lie p h k good to allow an individual to destroy altnosr beyond repair any part of the :oil or the wiitei or even the view. We are beginning to appreciate that philosophy. It is a philosophy that tells us that survival will not take care of itself. That we owe a future to our children. And that all of us must be guardians of that future. The time must pass when we relax in the notion thar some of us-corporations in particular-can evade that responsibility.
Edmtcnci S. Muskie is completing his second term in the Senate. He is a former Governor of Maitre ( 1954-.58)
