splonkydoo
Well-Known Member
Howya. First time posting in this sub-forum, so bear with me.
Jacobs Engineering are a global firm that paid -$37 million quid in tax in the States last year (so, less than zero %).
I recently found out that my local nature network group, has taken sponsorship money from Jacobs. Now, I am a bit of a lefty and ecologist, so I was immediately wondering why a local nature group would take such sponsorship, or from any other global engineering group. I looked in to Jacobs and quite quickly found that they in the area of providing nuclear arms and have massive contracts with the US military. They also had a 25 year contract to oversee the Trident programme in the UK until BoJo gadooshed them and re-nationalised it.
If that isn't bad enough, they are also involved in an on-going scandal in the US which due to their negligence resulted in 40 deaths, and 500 workers with serious long-term health problems. This was due to a massive coal-ash spill in 2014, where they actively discouraged clean-up workers from wearing masks or PPE , due to public perception concerns.
They 'divested' of their mining and gas portfolio in recent years (for a handsome profit), so are 'turning green'. But what did their mining portfolio consist of? Well, the Oyu Tolgoi mine in Mongolia, which is hugely controversial for one. My comment to my local nature group is as follows:
Hi. I'm not here to be a troublemaker but this is really really not ok for a community ecology group. Why was corporate sponsorship taken from Jacobs Engineering? They are a $10bn global company who paid zero tax in the US last year, and has had and still has many dubious business interests which run totally counter to sustainable ecology.
Jacobs are involved in nuclear arms. They operate a testing, research, commissioning, and decommissioning service for the US military in Nevada (the same one which has been used since 1951 to test nuclear devices). They are paid handsomely by the US military to carry this out. Until last year, they also had a 25 year contract in over-seeing the Trident nuclear arms facility in the UK. https://finance.yahoo.com/.../jacobs-apos-jec-joint...
They also provide on-going infrastructural and logistical support to the latest high-tech killing machines of the US army:
'When it comes to delivering America’s resolve, the B-21 Raider will be standing by, silent and ready. We are providing America’s warfighters with an advanced aircraft offering a combination of range, payload, and survivability. The B-21 Raider will be capable of penetrating the toughest defenses to deliver precision strikes anywhere in the world. The B-21 is the future of deterrence.'
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/
https://invest.jacobs.com/.../Jacobs-Wins.../default.aspx
This should be a great cause for alarm in itself for members, but I will go further.
In 2014 Jacobs were contracted to clean up the US's largest coal ash spill, a big natural disaster. However they failed to provide PPE (protective suits and masks) to their workers, and actively discouraged those who did wear PPE from working on-site (due to cynical concerns around public perception). Since 2014 40 workers are dead, and 500 have on-going serious health issues with huge outstanding medical bills - and have been hit badly by the Covid-19 pandemic as they are now immuno-compromised. This case has been to court and Jacobs have been directed to settle with those affected, but have so far failed to do so. From a Guardian article: "Jacobs’ safety manager at the time, Tom Bock, told them they could safely 'eat a pound of coal ash a day' and directed at least three workers – two laborer foremen and a tool room manager – to turn over or destroy on-site dust masks". Furthermore, when an inadequate settlement was offered and rightly rejected Jacobs tried to seduce further plaintiffs and their families with a pay-off of '$10,000 each to drop their own lawsuits' and when news of this sham settlment leaked to the press and became public 'Jacobs tried to get a court to charge the workers for the company’s legal fees.' As far as I know this case is still on-going and more can be read here https://www.theguardian.com/.../coal-spill-workers-sick...
It is true that Jacobs have recently sold off their historic mining, gas, and minerals portfolio, which in a sense we can call divestment - but they also did profit massively from this sale. While it is commendable they are now rid of this portfolio, it is also about 40 years too late, and we need to look at the real balance sheet.
From 2016 to 2020 Jacobs was involved in a multi-billion euro expansion of the Oyu Tolgoi mine in Mongolia. This is a very controversial mine which has led to displacement of local nomadic tribes, takes up all available water supplies within a desert area, and is an area which is a habitat for at least six endangered species found nowhere else in the world. https://invest.jacobs.com/.../Jacobs-Wins.../default.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyu_Tolgoi_mine...
Jacobs also previously had commercial relations as recently as 2019 with a mining group called Newcrest who have been accused of human rights violations https://invest.jacobs.com/.../Jacobs.../default.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcrest_Mining#Criticism
There are many other examples I can bring up of very questionable ecological and ethical practice this company has engaged in.
As a member I value the on-going work of the Nature Network, and the time and dedication of volunteers given to the project of promoting ecology and sustainability. But there is no polite way to say this - this is dirty money. Given the information I've shared, I feel that it's unsuitable for a community nature group to accept this sponsorship, and that many other members will agree with this. I suggest any money given is immediately returned and the sponsorship severed, including the removal of their mention on any Nature Network material. If for some reason this is not possible, then I suggest a wider meeting of the organisation should be convened to discuss it.
Personally I believe this has just been an unfortunate over-sight on behalf of the network, there was a lot of good work that went in to this project by many volunteers, but the issues around the sponsorship could have been quickly addressed and flagged much earlier if their was a wider membership involvement within the group.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I am not here to make trouble, but I am a concerned member of the network. I think this issue is serious and needs to be rectified somehow as it risks tarnishing the good name the Nature Network has built up over years for the benefit of a company who has had a very dubious history.
Jacobs Engineering are a global firm that paid -$37 million quid in tax in the States last year (so, less than zero %).
I recently found out that my local nature network group, has taken sponsorship money from Jacobs. Now, I am a bit of a lefty and ecologist, so I was immediately wondering why a local nature group would take such sponsorship, or from any other global engineering group. I looked in to Jacobs and quite quickly found that they in the area of providing nuclear arms and have massive contracts with the US military. They also had a 25 year contract to oversee the Trident programme in the UK until BoJo gadooshed them and re-nationalised it.
If that isn't bad enough, they are also involved in an on-going scandal in the US which due to their negligence resulted in 40 deaths, and 500 workers with serious long-term health problems. This was due to a massive coal-ash spill in 2014, where they actively discouraged clean-up workers from wearing masks or PPE , due to public perception concerns.
They 'divested' of their mining and gas portfolio in recent years (for a handsome profit), so are 'turning green'. But what did their mining portfolio consist of? Well, the Oyu Tolgoi mine in Mongolia, which is hugely controversial for one. My comment to my local nature group is as follows:
Hi. I'm not here to be a troublemaker but this is really really not ok for a community ecology group. Why was corporate sponsorship taken from Jacobs Engineering? They are a $10bn global company who paid zero tax in the US last year, and has had and still has many dubious business interests which run totally counter to sustainable ecology.
Jacobs are involved in nuclear arms. They operate a testing, research, commissioning, and decommissioning service for the US military in Nevada (the same one which has been used since 1951 to test nuclear devices). They are paid handsomely by the US military to carry this out. Until last year, they also had a 25 year contract in over-seeing the Trident nuclear arms facility in the UK. https://finance.yahoo.com/.../jacobs-apos-jec-joint...
They also provide on-going infrastructural and logistical support to the latest high-tech killing machines of the US army:
'When it comes to delivering America’s resolve, the B-21 Raider will be standing by, silent and ready. We are providing America’s warfighters with an advanced aircraft offering a combination of range, payload, and survivability. The B-21 Raider will be capable of penetrating the toughest defenses to deliver precision strikes anywhere in the world. The B-21 is the future of deterrence.'
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/
https://invest.jacobs.com/.../Jacobs-Wins.../default.aspx
This should be a great cause for alarm in itself for members, but I will go further.
In 2014 Jacobs were contracted to clean up the US's largest coal ash spill, a big natural disaster. However they failed to provide PPE (protective suits and masks) to their workers, and actively discouraged those who did wear PPE from working on-site (due to cynical concerns around public perception). Since 2014 40 workers are dead, and 500 have on-going serious health issues with huge outstanding medical bills - and have been hit badly by the Covid-19 pandemic as they are now immuno-compromised. This case has been to court and Jacobs have been directed to settle with those affected, but have so far failed to do so. From a Guardian article: "Jacobs’ safety manager at the time, Tom Bock, told them they could safely 'eat a pound of coal ash a day' and directed at least three workers – two laborer foremen and a tool room manager – to turn over or destroy on-site dust masks". Furthermore, when an inadequate settlement was offered and rightly rejected Jacobs tried to seduce further plaintiffs and their families with a pay-off of '$10,000 each to drop their own lawsuits' and when news of this sham settlment leaked to the press and became public 'Jacobs tried to get a court to charge the workers for the company’s legal fees.' As far as I know this case is still on-going and more can be read here https://www.theguardian.com/.../coal-spill-workers-sick...
It is true that Jacobs have recently sold off their historic mining, gas, and minerals portfolio, which in a sense we can call divestment - but they also did profit massively from this sale. While it is commendable they are now rid of this portfolio, it is also about 40 years too late, and we need to look at the real balance sheet.
From 2016 to 2020 Jacobs was involved in a multi-billion euro expansion of the Oyu Tolgoi mine in Mongolia. This is a very controversial mine which has led to displacement of local nomadic tribes, takes up all available water supplies within a desert area, and is an area which is a habitat for at least six endangered species found nowhere else in the world. https://invest.jacobs.com/.../Jacobs-Wins.../default.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyu_Tolgoi_mine...
Jacobs also previously had commercial relations as recently as 2019 with a mining group called Newcrest who have been accused of human rights violations https://invest.jacobs.com/.../Jacobs.../default.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcrest_Mining#Criticism
There are many other examples I can bring up of very questionable ecological and ethical practice this company has engaged in.
As a member I value the on-going work of the Nature Network, and the time and dedication of volunteers given to the project of promoting ecology and sustainability. But there is no polite way to say this - this is dirty money. Given the information I've shared, I feel that it's unsuitable for a community nature group to accept this sponsorship, and that many other members will agree with this. I suggest any money given is immediately returned and the sponsorship severed, including the removal of their mention on any Nature Network material. If for some reason this is not possible, then I suggest a wider meeting of the organisation should be convened to discuss it.
Personally I believe this has just been an unfortunate over-sight on behalf of the network, there was a lot of good work that went in to this project by many volunteers, but the issues around the sponsorship could have been quickly addressed and flagged much earlier if their was a wider membership involvement within the group.
As I said at the beginning of this post, I am not here to make trouble, but I am a concerned member of the network. I think this issue is serious and needs to be rectified somehow as it risks tarnishing the good name the Nature Network has built up over years for the benefit of a company who has had a very dubious history.
Last edited:
