Have green campaigners changed their colour?
Concluding our occasional series on links between NGOs and companies, Alison Maitland warns that there are risks as well as benefits for both sides Have pressure groups gone soft on business? Activists who once resorted to open confrontation to make their point now talk to companies behind the scenes or take their money to set up joint projects to tackle social and environmental problems.
Even Greenpeace, the environmental campaign group that went down in history for its assault on Royal Dutch Shell over the planned sinking of the Brent Spar oil platform nearly a decade ago, speaks a more conciliatory language about business today. The old view of companies as uniformly bad was “a big missed opportunity”, says Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK.
The group has entered several alliances in the past few years with companies including Unilever, the consumer goods multinational, and NPower, one of the UK's biggest electricity suppliers.
“We think [alliances] are essential to unlocking progress,” says Mr Tindale. “The more unusual the alliance, the more effective it is likely to be. Greenpeace is interested in who has the power to make change, rather than simply being an outside group and protesting.”
Greenpeace is in good company. Oxfam's UK arm recently joined forces with Starbucks, the global coffee retail chain, on a project to encourage sustainable coffee production in Ethiopia. Chiquita, the US banana giant once criticised for poor environmental and labour practices, has changed the way it does business with help from conservationists at Rainforest Alliance.
“It's amazing how rapidly these partnerships have become accepted on all sides,” says John Elkington, who chairs SustainAbility, an international consultancy, and has worked in this area for 30 years.
Meanwhile, a host of other alliances have been formed by charities and development agencies that have traditionally been less averse to working with the private sector. Save the Children, for example, has developed global partnerships with American Express, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser and Ikea.
Behind the rapprochement between business and campaigners lie both realism and necessity. The rationale for companies is clear. Under pressure to restore public trust, they see partnerships as a way to gain credibility and demonstrate transparency. Harnessing the local expertise of development agencies is also useful to them in understanding new market opportunities in developing countries.
From the agencies' perspective, companies offer money, technology and influence on a scale that many feel they could not achieve on their own or with govern ments. “The intergovernmental system is not delivering through regulatory approaches. NGOs are now turning to market forces as a catalyst for change,” writes Claude Martin, executive director of WWF, in “A Business Guide to Development Actors”, a report by the International Business Leaders Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Another factor oiling the wheels of partnerships is the movement of people with campaign or research backgrounds into the private sector. Francis Sullivan, director of conservation at WWF-UK, joined HSBC this year on secondment as an adviser, with a brief that includes furthering links with “environmentally interested parties”.
Scott Keillor, head of corporate social responsibility and communications at Starbucks UK, started out as a research ecologist. Charlotte Grezo, director of corporate responsibility at Vodafone, is an environmental biologist who formed links with campaign groups while working on climate change and biodiversity at BP.
Is the growth in partnerships unequivocally positive? Deborah Doane, who chairs the Core coalition of campaigners pressing for mandatory corporate reporting on environmental and social performance, thinks not. She says there is a danger that alliances can give a misleading impression of progress. International partnerships to tackle supply chain standards, for example, do not address the underlying problem of low prices. She argues that companies always have the upper hand. “NGOs have felt that over the last few years in some of the broader partnerships their names have been used for PR purposes.”
Mr Elkington says there are other risks for campaign groups entering alliances. They may find that, once their expertise has been used, they are gradually squeezed out by others, including companies themselves and social entrepreneurs, who can operate without the constraints of having a large number of donors or members to please. “Others will learn to do the NGO thing, not necessarily in the NGO format,” he says.
But companies also run risks in working with non-profit groups that can gain an insight into their weak points and use this to sharpen their campaigns.
To prove durable, alliances need to produce their intended benefits. “We need some dramatically successful partnerships,” says Mr Elkington. He cites as positive examples Anglo American's work with loveLife, the South African HIV/Aids prevention programme for young people, and the UK government's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, backed by some big investors, campaigners and companies, that encourages producer countries to disclose how they use revenues from oil, gas and mining.
Without successes, partnerships will create cynicism on both sides. There are usually other campaigners willing to use more radical and aggressive tactics. A case was the hoaxer who pretended in a live interview on BBC World this month to be a spokesman for Dow Chemical announcing a $12bn (￡6.3bn) compensation fund for the victims of the Bhopal disaster in India.
Mr Elkington believes that partnerships are not suitable for every campaign organisation. “I'd be horrified if we got to the point where every NGO was in bed with one or more companies. There's no question that it dilutes their capacity really to drive change through the media or the public mind. They become civilised and domesticated to some degree.”
Christian Aid, a church-backed agency, avoids alliances with big international companies, although it has a partnership with the UK's Co-operative Bank, which has carved a niche as an ethical financial institution.
Partnerships with multinationals are too risky, says Andrew Pendleton, head of trade policy at the charity, which published a scathing report about corporate social responsibility this year. “We don't want to do anything which is going to limit our ability to be critical.” he says. “There's nothing wrong with the adversarial approach when it's necessary, and it sometimes is some of the corporate responsibility agenda is disingenuous.”
Mr Pendleton says many of Christian Aid's supporters distrust big business. Greenpeace, on the other hand, says a survey of its supporters showed that they generally wanted more co-operation with business, even though some have opposed its corporate alliances. Mr Tindale of Greenpeace believes non-profit groups will in future be divided between those that take corporate donations and those that co-operate with companies but eschew any financial relationship.
He says Greenpeace's key to retaining independence lies in refusing corporate funding, receiving no profits from joint ventures such as its renewable energy initiative with NPower and working with companies on single projects rather than endorsing all they do.
“The big players have access to capital and can do things quicker and on a bigger scale,” he says, explaining the choice of Unilever and NPower as partners. “We use the judo-throw analogy: you use the weight of your opponent to achieve your objective.”
绿色组织变色了吗？
压力团体对企业的立场有所软化吗？激进分子一度通过公开冲突来表明自己的观点，如今则在幕后与公司会谈，或者拿公司的钱来设立合作项目，来处理社会和环境问题。
如今，就连绿色和平组织(Greenpeace)对企业的言辞也更加平和。近10年前，这家环保团体对荷兰皇家壳牌(Royal Dutch Shell)把Brent Spar钻井平台沉入海底的计划进行攻击，而使自己名垂史册。所谓“公司是天下乌鸦一般黑”的老观点是个“被错失的大好良机，” 英国绿色和平组织执行干事斯蒂芬?廷德尔(Stephen Tindale)表示。
过去几年里，该组织与好几家企业形成了联盟关系，其中包括跨国消费品巨头联合利华(Unilever)，以及英国最大的电力供应商之一Npower。
不满足于只举行抗议的外部团体
“我们觉得(联盟)对于启动进程必不可少，” 廷德尔先生说，“联盟越是不寻常，它就可能越有效力。绿色和平感兴趣的是谁有能力进行变革，而不光是作为一家举行抗议的外部团体。”
绿色和平组织不是唯一这么做的非政府组织。乐施会(Oxfam)英国分部最近与全球咖啡零售连锁店星巴克(Starbucks)协力推出一个项目，鼓励埃塞俄比亚进行可持续的咖啡生产。美国的香蕉业巨头奇基塔(Chiquita)一度因环境及劳工方面操作不良而受到批评，现在该公司在雨林联盟(Rainforest Alliance)自然资源保护学家的帮助下，改变了开展业务的方式。
“这些伙伴关系这么快就为各方所接受，真是令人惊讶，”国际咨询公司SustainAbility的董事长约翰?埃尔金顿(John Elkington)表示。他已在这一领域工作了30年。
同时，各慈善组织与开发机构已与企业结成了其它一大批联盟，这些组织和机构传统上对与私人企业合作没有那么反感。例如，慈善团体“拯救儿童”(Save the Children)已与美国运通(American Express)、宝洁(Procter Gamble)、利洁时(Reckitt Benckiser)以及宜家(Ikea)建立了全球合作伙伴关系。
现实主义
在企业与压力团体和睦相处的背后，是现实主义和这样做的必要性。企业的基本逻辑很清楚。在恢复公众信任的压力下，它们把伙伴关系看作获得信任和展示透明度的一个途径。在了解发展中国家的市场新机遇方面，利用发展机构的当地知识，对企业来说也不无裨益。
在发展机构看来，企业提供资金、技术和影响力的规模，是它们凭借自身或与政府合作所无法实现的。“通过法规途径运作的政府间系统，并未发挥有效作用，非政府组织现正转而求助于市场力量，将其作为一种变革催化剂，”世界自然基金会(WWF)执行干事克劳德?马丁(Claude Martin) 在一篇名为《发展参与者商业指南》(A Business Guide to Development Actors)的报告中写道。这篇报告是国际商业领袖论坛(International Business Leaders Forum)与世界可持续发展工商理事会(World Business Council for Sustainable Development)合作完成的。
推动合作关系的另一个因素，是有着活动或研究背景的人转移到了私人部门。世界自然基金会英国分会资源保护主管弗朗西斯?沙利文(Francis Sullivan)今年作为顾问被推举进入汇丰银行，他受命担负的职责之一，是增进与“对环保有兴趣的团体”的关系。
星巴克英国公司企业社会责任及交流业务的负责人斯科特?谢勒(Scott Keillor)，当初是作为一名生态研究员上任的。沃达丰(Vodafone)主管企业责任的董事夏洛特?格雷佐(Charlotte Grezo)是一名环保生物学家，她在英国石油(BP)从事气候变化和生物多样性方面的研究时，与一些压力团体建立了合作关系。
另类观点
伙伴关系的发展只有积极面，没有消极面吗？德博拉?多恩(Deborah Doane)认为并非如此。她是Core联盟的主席，该联盟敦促要强制企业报告其环保和社会表现。她说，结盟可能给人造成出现进展的错觉。以处理供应链标准的国际联盟为例，它们没有解决低价的根本问题。她强调说，企业总是占上风。“在过去几年里，非政府组织(NGO)已经感觉到，在一些范围更广的合作关系中，它们的名字一直被用于公关目的。”
埃尔金顿先生说，压力团体与企业结盟还有其它风险。它们可能发现，一旦它们的专业技能得到利用，它们就会被其它合作方逐渐排挤出来，其中包括公司自身和社会企业家。这些方面没有大量捐赠人或成员要去取悦，可以不受这种约束而进行运作。“其它合作方将学会做非政府组织所做的事，而未必要采用非政府组织模式，”他表示。
但企业与非盈利团体合作也要冒风险。这些团体能够借此洞悉公司的弱点，并利用这一点来加强它们的斗争。
成功要素
要证明自己可持久，联盟需要产生期望获得的益处。“我们需要一些极为成功的合作关系，”埃尔金顿先生说。他列举了一些积极事例，如Anglo American与LoveLife的合作，后者是针对年轻人的南非艾滋病防范计划。还有英国政府的“采掘行业透明度行动计划”(Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative)，这个项目受到了一些大投资方、活动团体和企业的支持，旨在鼓励生产国披露它们如何利用从石油、天然气和采矿业获得的收入。
如果合作关系不成功，就会令双方遭到批评。通常会有其它活动人士愿意采用更彻底、更激进的战术。一个例子是本月有人假冒陶氏化学(Dow Chemical)的发言人，在接受英国广播公司国际频道(BBC World)的现场采访时，宣布公司将向印度博帕尔(Bhopal)灾难的受害者提供120亿美元的赔偿金。
局限性
埃尔金顿先生认为，合作关系不是对每家压力团体都适合。“如果有一天，每家非政府组织都与一家或多家公司结盟，我将感到震惊。毫无疑问，这种做法确实减弱了它们通过媒体或大众思想而推动变革的能力。在一定程度上，它们会变得礼貌而驯良。”
基督徒互援会(Christian Aid)是一家有着教会背景的机构。尽管它与英国的合作社银行(Co-operative Bank)有伙伴关系，但它避免与国际大公司结盟。合作社银行已为自己树立了“讲道德的金融机构”这一特殊形象。
基督徒互援会负责贸易政策事务的安德鲁?彭德尔顿(Andrew Pendleton)表示，与跨国公司结盟的风险太大。该慈善机构今年发表了一份有关企业社会责任的报告，措辞相当尖锐。“我们不想做任何将限制我们批判能力的事情，”他说，“必要时采取对抗行为没什么不对，而且有时候企业社会责任议程上的一些内容毫无诚意。”
彭德尔顿先生表示，许多基督徒互援会的支持者不信任大企业。但绿色和平组织则表示，对其支持者进行的一项调查显示，尽管一些人曾对该组织与公司结盟表示反对，但通常他们希望与企业进行更多合作。绿色和平组织的廷德尔先生认为，非盈利团体未来将被划分为两类，一类是接受公司捐赠的团体，另一类是与公司合作、但避免任何财务关系的团体。
他说，绿色和平组织保持独立的关键在于，它拒绝企业资助、不从它与企业的联合项目（例如它与Npower共建的可再生能源计划）中获取任何盈利，而且只在单个项目上与企业合作，而不是对企业的全部行为全面表示赞同。
“较大的公司能够获得资金，还能以更快的速度、更大的规模采取行动，”他解释为何要选择联合利华和Npower作为合作伙伴，“我们用柔道来打个比方：你利用对手的体重来达到你的目的。”
