Introduction
This story illustrates 350 Australia’s strategic decision-making process as they took on the largest coal export facility project in the world, showcasing their ability to think like their opponent and strategically target banks, ultimately selecting the Commonwealth Bank as their primary focus for maximum impact.
The story is told via a presentation and shared as part of the Organising Story-telling Lab, a collection of different case studies and stories of organising and movements from across the globe collated and presented by 350.org.
The story telling lab weaves lessons from a range of stories and perspectives, including people close to the ground and nationally.
Each case draws out lessons from the people involved and concludes with broader generalisations. Whilst these case studies are focused on 350 and the climate movement the lessons learned and reflections are applicable to any campaign.
See the original slides on the 350.org Organising Story-telling lab. The Commons has also shared the presentation below and made minor formatting edits to the original such as adding headings and quotes.
Welcome to the fight over the largest coal export facility in the world
In the “Galilee Basin” in Queensland, nine mines are planned – each larger than any coal mine currently operating in the country. Multiple companies are backing this – with plans to lay down new railroads, expand export facilities, and massively increase Australia’s coal exports. The most advanced company’s plans: Adani.
350 decides to join the fight
The plans for the Galilee Basin were terrible. Really bad.
National groups had bonded together to oppose this project. Movement leaders laid out a plan: slow down all these projects until the “cross-over” point, when coal is more expensive than renewables.
Local groups were fighting often without clear support or direction. The strategy wasn’t defined, but what was clear: we have to stop this.
350 had not been involved. But the Do The Math tour kicked 350 into gear. And Global PowerShift inspired people to fight what some were calling “Australia’s Keystone.”
How to start? Get some allies
Photos of Joshua Creaser and Moira Williams
Joshua explains:
We were not actually sure how to be involved. We did a bunch of strategy documents over the first 6-12 months that never really went anywhere. During a road trip to the Galilee Basin, we met with Moira, who had been working on the ground. We hoped those relationships could be a strong base to build a campaign. Those people became very involved in the campaign. But we ended the trip and realized we don’t really have a next step.
Moira is recruited to 350 and brings her expertise and relationships. (Yeah!)
Political context
They analyzed the political context for clues on what they should do.
Federal Government
Prime Minister Tony Abbott was drenched in coal money. He was 100% supportive of the coal expansion.
Allies: Maules Creek
350 had joined a national fight to stop a coal mine in Maules Creek.
That key campaign offered experience with direct action, tactical innovation, initial learning about the financing of mines, and contact with aboriginal communities.
Broad community
People hated the idea of risking the Great Barrier Reef with this project.
It was easy for people to oppose – but few knew the full reach and impact of this project.
Local Government
The Queensland State government had full support for these projects.
They were prepared to subsidise the project to deliver “thousands of jobs for the region.”
350 Aussie’s action ideas
- Many people inside 350 urged holding a mass mobilisation on Parliament House (akin to Keystone’s White House action). 350 volunteers were psyched about this.
- A few people proposed targeting the banks and financiers directly. There was little expertise and no sharp plan.
- Spend more time on-the-ground building relationships with people directly impacted by the development.
Given what you know, what would you do?
(Remember people rarely feel like we have enough information to make a decision.)
- Hold a mass mobilisation on Parliament Hill
- Target the banks directly
- Focus on relationship- building with frontline communities
Their choice
Target the banks directly and also Focus on relationship-building with frontline communities.
Let’s hear their rationale.
Why reject mass mobilisation?
Joshua:
The federal government was so bad. It was so unlikely that we were actually going to shift them. On those grounds, we rejected the idea of a mass mobilisation – which was was hard, because people got really caught up on that idea – but strategically we couldn’t justify it.
Further, mass mobilisation would mobilise people who already agreed but it wouldn’t serve as a long-term organising strategy to bring in new people. In other words, after the march is over – then what?
They needed a strategy that would force them to expand their base of people. That means organising – the recruitment of new people to your side and building an infrastructure, not only mobilising, which is getting those people to show up at actions.
Therefore, target the banks
Targeting the banks was such a long-term strategy. It requires gaining expertise, building local groups across the country, and expanding capacity. In other words, it was a bold (and risky) plan that to win forced them to grow.
Frontline communities: key to win, but not alone enough to win
Working with frontline communities supports that approach. Moira was hired to build capacity on the frontlines.
And a common dynamic was happening: the people on the frontlines were feeling desperate – they kept hearing rumours that Adani was going to start building any day.
Moira prepared local communities to resist with blockades and direct action.
However, the Maules Creek campaign taught them a hard-fought lesson: even with a strong community blockade, it’s near impossible to win once a company has finance and all their approvals.
So 350 Australia decided direct action could delay, but not alone stop the project. Using civil disobedience ahead of time would send a signal to investors that communities would cause a headache for this project. This complemented the bank strategy.
Key point: Thinking like their Opponent
If they had picked what was most popular in their group, they would have done a mass action. Instead, they put themselves in the position of Adani. They asked: If we were Adani, what strategy would most likely threaten our ability to carry out our plans?
Would it be if activists targeted the federal government? Not in this case – that was expected. In fact, the government was well-prepared for (and used to) facing withering attacks.
But targeting the banks? If successful, this cut the project’s economic ability to carry it out – and rumor had it the funding was somewhat vulnerable.
Learning to target banks
It started slow. Joshua: “It kind of sat there and we didn’t feel that we had much capacity to really campaign and change their investment.”
But they began to get contacts. Moira: “We were lucky to get access to someone who was feeding us financial information, markets, likelihoods.”
“We began analyzing,” said Joshua, “and realized for its size, Adani would need one of the four big Australian banks.”
They kept hearing two themes:
1) Adani needed major bank funding to pay for the project
2) Rumours swirled constantly that Adani was on the verge of getting funding.
They needed to pick fast – but which bank strategy to choose?
Target Commonwealth
Pick the biggest bank and the most likely to be in conversation with Adani.
It wasn’t the hardest strategy – nor the most likely to win, but if the biggest bank goes, others may follow.
Target Westpac
Pick the second largest bank which has green credentials, making it easier to win.
This was the easiest strategy and the most likely to get an immediate win.
All four banks
Don’t pick just one bank, instead target all four banks at once.
It was the hardest strategy to get a win. But since any bank could give money, why not target them all?
Which bank target would you choose?
Commonwealth
The largest and most likely to give money
Westpac
Pick the “lower- hanging fruit” that’s easier to win & create some momentum
All Four Banks
Since any of them could supply funding, target all of them at once
Their choice
This wasn’t an easy decision – and different partners in the coalition picked different strategies.
Commonwealth
The largest and most likely to give money
Why did they pick Commonwealth?
Ultimately, we went with Commonwealth – the biggest threat – because if we could get them to say no, then we could topple the rest. We thought this fed the narrative of ‘biggest’ – i.e. this bank is the biggest threat to the biggest coal project Australia’s ever seen. – Joshua
Further, if they had picked “4 separate banks” each bank would not feel as targeted and therefore not as pressured. Instead 350 Australia put all their energy and pressure on one bank – who then would feel a lot of heat to make the right decision.
Key point: Thinking like their Opponent
If they picked the easiest target (or the hardest), they would have gone a different direction. Instead, once again, they put themselves the shoes of their opposition. They asked: If we were Adani, which bank target would most scares us?
If activists removed the “green” bank, it would scare Adani only if Adani still couldn’t get funding from other banks. That’s not easy, since the bank’s green credentials make it easy for banks to distance themselves. So targeting that bank alone isn’t a threat.
Targeting all banks? Definitely a threat. But such a campaign risked being broad and allowing one bank to “slip under the radar.
Targeting Commonwealth? Major threat, especially if the campaign can show that if they leave, others will follow.
To add to this, they began doing profiles/bios of the bank’s key decision makers. They kept track of media stories on them. This helped them learn about them, think about them, and see what were their considerations.
They created a “critical path” to analyze how they could affect the bank. And they kept returning to their critical path to see how they were doing.
Now, which tactics to pick?
Moira: “We needed to give bank branches a headache – creating a media story, getting their staff talking about the actions internally, etc.”
But how to organise it? Which tactics would be most useful for our goal of scaring CommBank for giving money to Adani?
Build a structure for action
They decided to organise a week of actions called Raise the Heat.
Each local region would “adopt” their own local CommBank branch to do actions at.
Joshua: “We mapped out 5 or 6 days for this week to figure out how to raise the heat on CommBank.”
The idea was each day would increase the “pressure” on the bank, escalating to outright direct action.
Which actions do you ask people to take?
- Occupation of main office with a day-long sit-in (in Melbourne)
- Get primary schools to do direct action, including using a fireman’s ladder to get onto roof and do banner drop
- Hold a funeral for coal outside bank branch
Their choice
All of the above (and more), organised locally.
The Result of Raise the Heat
Joshua: “The flow of escalation wasn’t anywhere near as smooth as we outlined.” Instead of smoothly escalating days, direct actions happened before, during, and after. But there were a lot: 115 actions at 50+ different bank branches.
“We had a number of internal people tell us how our actions were being felt in the branches, said Joshua. The feedback from bank managers: they were impressed by the organisation, number of actions, and worried about the potential reputational damage they could do.
Moira said, “We knew they were taking us seriously,” especially when a volunteer sent an internal e-mail from the bank CEO addressing the attack on their reputation.
Joshua: “Throughout the week, they became more cautious – the bank would shut-down right away, even if people only planned street theatre. We felt a sense of power in that.”
Key point: Thinking like their Opponent
They could have just focused on numbers. Or direct action. Or actions to get into media. But they picked based on this question: What matters to a bank is brand image (reputation) and economic bottomline (profit) – which tactics most apply pressure to that?
They therefore created a guide showing the kinds of actions that do that: things that gain media and threaten customers – like Moira explaining: “In reef coast towns we had 4 generations of women putting CommBank on notice. One had been banking for 50 years and said they’re going to remove their funds if the bank funds Adani.” They encouraged other actions that influenced customers, like actions at banks and “stickering near branches and ATMs.”
Action Guide
Their Action Guide starts by showing how they were thinking like their opponents and what impacts the bank.
What does the bank care about?
For Raise the Heat on CommBank to be effective, we need to target the two things a retail bank cares above all else – their reputation and their profits. This guide suggests how you can do that in creative and inclusive ways.
Remember, this is just a guide. If you have other ideas to Raise the Heat at your branch we’d love to hear them and support you to make them happen.
What happened next?
Rumours swirled that CommBank was scared. Negotiations continued through back channels. The bank’s tone shifted and it began to send signals they had made a decision to not fund Adani.
We planned another few days of action, similar to the first week. In a way we started to complicate it, including some clever nuanced messages with a brand-jamming thing – which sounded kind of cool – but upon reflection was just too complicated. – Joshua
One week before these days of action, the bank sent a private declaration to the coalition, “Look, we were thinking of funding Adani but now we’re not going to. So you should leave us alone.”
Intense strategy conversations ensued within the coalition:
- Since they want to retain good lines of communication and rapport with the bank, should they agree to cancel the week of action but keep it as an option for later?
- Since this might be a ploy, should they carry them out as planned?
- Or should they pick a middle road that shows the bank they are willing to negotiate in good faith and tone down the week of actions?
Now what do you do?
- Cancel the Week of Actions
- Carry Out the Week of Actions as planned
- Tone Down the Week of Actions
Their choice
- Carry Out the Week of Actions as planned
So what happened?
The coalition had beautiful high-level debate and discussion.
Joshua explains the final decision:
We decided to tell the bank: these actions are going ahead unless you give us something public. How on the earth can we tell our people to back down unless we can show them something public to show for it?
That threat had its intended effect.
Within 24 hours, CommBank tipped off a reporter that it was officially not going to fund Adani.
Committed to the actions by this point, 350 Australia did go ahead with the planned actions – but they did try to change their focus to be celebratory since they had just won.
They won!
Key point: Thinking like their Opponent
350 Aussie’s decision comes from putting themselves in the boardroom: If we were where the decision about Adani is being made, what would we see?
You’d see some argue in favour of funding Adani, “What kind of precedent are we setting if we allow agitators to decide our policy?” Others disagree but use financial rationale, “It does look like a risky investment.” Maybe there’s one or two who argue based on the public implication: “Our brand has already been damaged. It’s not going through.
So consider, what does it mean that the bank was sending out a new negotiation position saying “you won, please stop harassing us?”
It means that the internal fissures are red hot, enough that they are looking for a “way out” of their dilemma.
This proposal is then a face-saving way to get out of the situation.
One option: get the public off their banks, without having to admit that public pressure forced their hand. That way no “precedent” is set.
But that is not a win for the coalition: because they want it common knowledge – and especially among other banks – that CommBank was coerced by their demands.
The coalition’s strategy looks clearer from this perspective – and hence their decision to keep the pressure up.
The struggle continues
As expected, the public news of CommBank pulling out caused a cascade. Winning against the biggest bank sent the message to other banks, who soon after agreed not to offer funding, too.
Adani has not been able to secure funding – no new coal facilities!
“We didn’t say it was over at that point – and kind of still haven’t,” says Charlie.
There’s, of course, more twists and turns to take. But almost a year later, Adani still has no funding and there is no immediate prospect of the coal project being built!
That’s a massive win!
Lessons: Thinking like our opponent
Over and over again, 350 Australia showed that strategy includes thinking about things not only from our perspective, but about thinking how we impact and put pressure on our opponent.
In this case, we saw that good strategy is more than merely:
- using tactics that are exciting or fun to our membership;
- picking a target because we think it’s an easy win;
- measuring our effectiveness with how many numbers of actions we did, or how many people were arrested.
Instead, 350 Australia tried to get into the heads of their opponents, asking themselves questions like:
- If we were Adani, what strategy would most likely threaten our ability to carry out building a mine?
- If we were Adani, which bank target most scares us?
- What matters most to a bank? Brand image (reputation) and economic bottomline (profit). So design tactics that challenge what matters the most to them.
Some other key strategy to pull out from their work:
- Make a bold plan that forces you to grow. If you have the current capacity to carry out your plans, then they are not ambitious enough.
- You must organise before you can mobilise. Carrying out a mobilisation at Parliament is an expression of power, but not necessarily a way of growing power. Organising is about reaching new people – and they needed to do that in order to move CommBank.
- Put yourself in the boardroom. Even though we are not in the boardroom-or wherever decisions are getting made-in another way we are. We just have to imagine ourselves around the table and how our moves are impacting them.
- Do profiles of the key decision-makers, which helps you understand their positions and considerations.