BP and Royal Dutch/Shell join forces with Greenpeace
Working from a shared platform
By Alison Maitland
Published: November 28 2002 17:20 | Last Updated: November 28 2002 17:20
When energy companies such as BP and Royal Dutch/Shell joined forces with Greenpeace to urge governments to tackle climate change at the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development, eyebrows were raised in the corporate and non-corporate worlds.
The joint appeal by the campaign group and its traditional adversaries in the World Business Council for Sustainable Development was an example of the unlikely, and some would say unholy, alliances resulting from companies' growing willingness to converse with their critics.
On both sides, such alliances elicit widely varying degrees of enthusiasm. Negotiations on the Johannesburg agreement with Greenpeace continued up to the last minute because some WBCSD members questioned the value of joining forces with an organisation better known for direct action against oil rigs. As Charles Nicholson, senior adviser to BP, joked at the joint press conference: "Sharing platforms is something we do literally and figuratively."
The alliance also highlighted the dilemmas facing many non-government organisations as they forge closer links with the business world. While companies can gain kudos, advice, market intelligence and a better understanding of the risks to their reputation, the benefits are less immediately obvious for pressure groups, whose reputation depends on being trusted as independent critics.
"We got a bit of grief from our left flank in the NGO community for having sat down at the table [with business]," says Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace's climate policy director. "They said Greenpeace had gone soft and was supping with the devil."
His response to such critics is that it is business, not Greenpeace, that is beginning to change its spots. "These [WBCSD] people are not the devil. Their members are a very wide-ranging group of companies, some of whom are trying to do the right thing and some of whom are doing it for the "greenwash" effect."
Mr Sawyer says Greenpeace has been co-operating with progressive companies and fighting laggards for years. But the Johannesburg declaration was different - it was intended to be a "sensational" demonstration that the two sides' common concern over climate change overrode day-to-day differences. To underline that its own tactics had not changed, he points out, Greenpeace staged protests with South African campaigners immediately after the summit against a Dow Chemical factory and a Shell/BP refinery.
This cohabitation, albeit brief, reflects a greater blurring of boundaries in the work that non-profit organisations do. "NGOs are experimenting," says Elliot Schrage, former senior vice-president of global affairs at Gap and an adviser to the US Council on Foreign Relations. "They are asking themselves: can we be both adversarial and collaborative?"
Mr Schrage argues that, despite the risks, campaigners need to work with companies. "If you don't roll up your sleeves and get involved, if you're always on the outside, there's a limit to what you can achieve."
One way for non-profit organisations to lessen the risks to their reputation is through broader alliances involving the private, public and voluntary sectors of the kind forged in the diamond, apparel and mining industries. "It's easier for NGOs to participate if they are "inoculated" by the participation of governments or inter-governmental agencies."
Groups that choose to work with business say this route is the only way to effect long-term change. Agitating from the outside can be counter-productive, they argue.
"I like to think companies know they can come to us and say quietly: We think we have got child labour. What do you suggest we do?" says Fiona King, private sector adviser at Save the Children, the international development agency. "If we were a big campaigning NGO we [might] have taken a different attitude, shouting from the rooftops. But not so many NGOs would do that now. Usually if it gets into the media, it leads to children's lives being made worse because they lose their livelihoods."
The dilemmas are particularly acute when there are financial links. While some groups, including Greenpeace, do not accept donations from business, many do. The rapid growth in the voluntary sector has intensified competition for funds from all sources, including companies. The Global Civil Society 2002 report finds the number of international pressure groups has risen from about 13,000 to nearly 50,000 in the past 20 years.
Ms King says this underlines the need for caution. "With the boom in partnerships with the private sector, there is a blurring of agendas. It's really important for NGOs to be clear about their mandate."
There is active debate inside Save the Children about whether fundraising from companies will detract from any influence it has over them. The agency has an internal protocol about which companies it will and will not seek funding from.
The protocol, for example, bans Save the Children from fundraising from infant formula manufacturers such as Nestlé because the agency monitors these companies' adherence to the international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes. The agency provides free advice to some companies but sets clear parameters, says Ms King.
One question arising from the growth of partnerships is the role of pressure groups that remain on the outside. Will they be marginalised? Or will they find a new role as critics not only of companies but also of those that collaborate with them?
Global Exchange, a San Francisco human rights campaign, is one group that prefers to remain aloof. "I'm suspicious of NGOs that take money from corporations," says Medea Benjamin, founding director. "It colours their ability to have an unbiased relationship."
Global Exchange resigned from a working group of companies and non-profit organisations on labour conditions in China. "I wouldn't get involved in another partnership. It was a bad experience for us," says Ms Benjamin. "We always try the nice way first, and usually get nowhere. We've found we have been more successful when we have taken a more adversarial approach."
With potential disappointment in mind, groups that decide to work with business may find it best to form links gradually, learning how committed their corporate partner is before getting too close. Deborah Doane, head of corporate accountability at New Economics Foundation, a UK-based think-tank that "challenges business-as-usual", says pressure groups should watch out for so-called gagging clauses. "There's a role for engagement but NGOs shouldn't lose their ability to speak outside as well. They shouldn't sign a confidentiality agreement."
They should also consult their own "stakeholders" about partnering business, she says. The Greenpeace negotiators at Johannesburg did not publicise the planned agreement internally and Mr Sawyer admits this caused some rumblings. "You get arguments beforehand," he says. "That makes it complicated - and we didn't need to."
Another perceived danger lies in alliances that carry no sanctions for offenders. Ms King, who belongs to the Ethical Trading Initiative, a UK alliance of retailers, trade unions and voluntary organisations, says it has agreed measures to expel companies that fail to live up to their commitments. "This should reassure people that it's not just a cosy talking shop and that companies that join are not shielded from NGO scrutiny and campaigns."
External protests, boycotts and lawsuits are often what jolt companies into action. Advocacy groups can then work with companies to ensure that reforms are serious and universally beneficial. Insiders and outsiders, as well as those that straddle the two, have a role to play. As Global Civil Society 2002 puts it: "Change usually happens when there are effective groups working on both sides of the barricades."
Chorus of disapproval allowed
There is no "gagging clause" in the memorandum of understanding that RMC, the construction materials group, has just drawn up with Birdlife International, the conservation network, writes Alison Maitland.
"If for any reason one side does something the other side doesn't like, we're not bound to remain silent," says Mike Rands, Birdlife's director and chief executive. "We can go public and campaign on it, and likewise they'll drag us through the mud if they think we've done something wrong."
Both sides see this freedom to speak out, and in extremis to pull out, as crucial to ensuring this is a mature partnership. "Otherwise it would look like 'greenwash'," says Noel Morrin, RMC's group environmental director.
The agreement encourages RMC companies to use Birdlife network organisations in different countries to ensure that activities such as quarrying and extraction do not harm the environment and biodiversity.
RMC chose Birdlife International as its first global non-profit partner because both organisations are highly decentralised and have operations around the world. RMC is anxious to retain its "licence to operate" in areas that often harbour rare and endangered species.
The company is covering Birdlife International's costs for administering its part of the relationship. But Mr Rands stresses that his organisation must not become dependent on such funding. "It would make it harder to pull out if somebody's job was on the line or if it meant that our [Birdlife] partners wouldn't get financial support." |
