This page will present comments contributed by site visitors, arranged by topic, and viewable in chronological or reverse chronological order.

Meanwhile, here are three entries from Greendonor, put out for discussion.

Greenwashing
Shades of green: the value of NGO diversity

Greenwashing

Controversy has surrounded the growing trend for NGOs to work with big business to lessen the direct and indirect impacts of their activities on the environment.

NGOs who have worked with corporations say that real gains have resulted that otherwise would not have, and that the private sector is too important an actor to be ignored in the effort to protect the environment and conserve nature.

Critics say that companies are more interested in improving their image than in becoming greener (hence the term "greenwashing"), or that companies derive a large public relations benefit in exchange for minor changes in its practices or changes in its polices that don't translate into action, or that an association with companies with poor environmental records hurts the reputation of an NGO and brings discredit to the green NGO sector.

Perhaps both sides could be brought together if we could agree on some rules of engagement for cooperation between NGOs and companies. Here is a first stab at some suggested rules. Your input is invited.

RULE	ELABORATION AND DISCUSSION
1.   A company should not be entitled to display the logo of an NGO based solely on its financial contribution to the NGO.	The public can and does misconstrue a company's use of a green NGO logo as the NGO's endorsement of the company's environmental or conservation practices. The appropriate acknowledgement of the company's donation is inclusion in the NGO's list of supporters.
2.   Donations to an NGO by a company must have no effect on the NGO's role, if any, in critiquing that company or its industry.	To what extent should NGOs avoid the appearance of a possible conflict of interest? Should they decline contributions from companies that they have criticized or praised? Or would that be impractical and unwarranted?
3.   When an NGO gives a public evaluation (positive, negative or neutral) of a company's activities, it must disclose any donations made to it by that company.	At a minimum, the disclosure should entail inclusion of the company on its list of donors. Hence the company's donation cannot be made anonymously.
4.   Participation by a company in an NGO's programs must have no undue influence on the NGO's role, if any, in critiquing that company or its industry.	Such participation must not exempt a company from scrutiny or criticism, but the NGO should be free to mention the company's participation and benefits therefrom and to alter its appraisals to the extent that those benefits significantly alter the company's record.
5.   An NGO's recognition of improvements in a company's environmental practices in which the NGO played a part should be commensurate with the importance of those improvements as set against the company's overall record relative to other companies in its sector.	When reporting actions by companies, some context should be given so that the public has help in understanding how important the changes are. Is the company leading its sector? Does the company need to go further or to address other areas of its record?
6.   When a company makes a public reference to its donation to a green NGO, it must do so in a way that makes clear that it is referring to a donation ("in kind" or of money) and not involvement in the NGO's programs or changes in its policies and actions resulting from input from the NGO.	NGOs often have named categories of donors that, if cited by a company, might suggest program-level involvement between a company and NGO rather than a donor-recipient relationship. Thus a company should say (using a fictitious example) something like: "We are financial supporters of Biota Conservancy at the Polar Bear Partner level ($50,000-100,000)" rather than simply "We are a Polar Bear Partner of Biota Conservancy".
7.   When a company makes a public reference to its involvement in a green NGO's program, it should state the specifics of its involvement rather than make a general reference to a partnership (or similar phrase) with an NGO.	This rule is aimed at preventing greenwashing by disallowing simple references by a company to its relationship with a green NGO that might be taken as a blanket endorsement of the company by the NGO.

Further discussion

Some criticism of NGO-corporate relationships appears derived from a strongly anti-corporate worldview in which the responsibility of public companies to advance shareholder interests is taken as precluding serious voluntary action by companies to improve their environmental practices.

But improvements in environmental practices are not necessarily incompatible with the bottom line. Some changes result in cost savings rather than increased costs. And some changes that increase costs are considered good for the bottom line in that they improve the company's image and address company policies (now becoming commonplace) on "social responsibility".

Second, there is some leeway for public companies and much leeway for private companies to act outside of a strict regard for the bottom line. Some companies spend much more than others to have happy, loyal employees and some spend more than others to protect the environment or to harvest resources sustainably. That being the case, why should those companies not be recognized for being better than their peers — better than they need to be by law — in their environmental practices? And if such recognition benefits the company and spurs other companies to do likewise, that is a good outcome.

Third, some NGOs have expertise that companies find useful in lessening their environmental impacts and that may not be readily available elsewhere.

Fourth, no one disputes the role of NGOs in criticizing corporate activies, and it would be unreasonable to argue that they cannot then recognize improvements in those activities. Some NGOs prefer to work from a distance, criticizing and organizing boycotts; others prefer to work directly with the company. Both approaches are valid.

There is another view (voiced by The Economist, among others) of NGO-corporate partnerships and corporate social responsibility that argues that business can best serve the public simply by being successful in generating profits, jobs, products and services, and resulting tax revenues, and that it is the role of government to protect the environment and address social well-being. When the environment is protected through government regulation it maintains a level playing field, allowing businesses to compete fairly, whereas voluntary action on the part of a corporation can put it at a competitive disadvantage.

Those points are well taken, but government regulation, especially in developing countries, has not prevented unnecessary harm to the natural environment. And, as noted, voluntary action by businesses need not hurt their long-term interests.

In conclusion, benefits can accrue from NGOs working with corporations, but to avoid the real risk of greenwashing, the recognition of those benefits must be proportionate to the scale of the benefits in relation to the company's total operations, and there must be transparency and disclosure of donations made by companies to NGOs.

Related issue: Inclusion of corporate executives on NGO boards

Many green NGOs now have boards that are partly or mostly made up of executives of companies that are major supporters or "partners" of the organization.

Is this appropriate? What are the arguments for and against? Do such board members offer valuable expertise? Do they influence policies and programs in ways that other supporters or NGO staff might disagree with?

Left-leaning critics of green NGOs point to this phenomenon as evidence that the stated aims of NGOs are being subverted to serve the interests of corporate supporters/partners. Should the representation on boards of corporate executives be avoided or limited to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest?

Input is sought on these questions.

 

---

Shades of green: the value of NGO diversity

Environmental and conservation NGOs take many forms and have varied styles. Is there one best approach to conservation and to environmental activism? NGOs that have similar goals and different approaches will indeed vary in their results and degree of success. However we believe that there is much value in NGO diversity.

Green issues are complex and there are varied niches for effecting environmental and conservation gains. For example, an NGO can:

• directly conserve land through purchase or placement of easements (development restrictiions)
• work with local communities to shift their activities from unsustainable to more sustainable ones
• lobby governments to add to protected areas or improve their management
• lobby governments for improved legislation
• litigate where governments or companies are not following or upholding the law or are not carrying out their legal responsibilities
• educate the public about green issues and what they can do personally
• enlist the public as activists by guiding and facilitating their communications with government
• work with corporations directly to help them improve their environmental practices
• conduct high-profile public campaigns critiquing corporate practices, including organizing demonstrations and consumer boycotts to apply pressure to companies
• conduct high-profile public campaigns critiquing (or promoting) multi-lateral agencies or international agreements

The tone of NGO communications ranges from polite and non-confrontational to fiercely critical, and actions can extend all the way to civil disobedience. Most actions have a degree of effectiveness, but a line must be drawn at illegal activities that put people at risk or damage property, as those are counter-productive and bring disrepute to the environmental movement, which is often referred to as a single entity — usually "environmentalists" — by the media. Similarly unacceptable are public campaigns that attempt to mislead with false or unreliable information.

Most NGOs specialize in one or a few activities, and specializion will tend to enhance expertise and effectiveness and minimize the bureaucratic load.

Furthermore, as with medical research, it is difficult to predict which avenues will result in the greatest benefit.

But more importantly, more progress can be expected with a broad front. Progress is achievable in all the areas mentioned — direct conservation, community sustainable development, legistlation and enforcement, adding to protected areas, local and household citizen action, government policy, corporate practices, multilateral agency operations, and international agreements. Why not pursue all areas simultaneously?

Finally, having varied green NGOs will elicit more support from donors than would a less varied NGO sector, as donors' interests and preferred styles are also varied.

Home | NGOs | Projects | Glossary | Your input