Why companies and campaigners collaborate
Michael Skapinker | Saturday, 19 July 2008
IN October 1997 John Browne, then chief executive of BP, told a conference of Greenpeace activists what a pleasure it was to be occupying one of their platforms instead of the usual practice of their occupying his.
"We have a close relationship with Greenpeace," he said.
Anyone who has seen television pictures of anti-globalisation riots and invasions of annual general meetings would be surprised how amiable companies and campaigners can be.
Early this month, on a gorgeous summer evening, as leaders of some of the world's top companies and non-governmental organisations gathered on the rooftop deck of London's National Theatre, it was impossible to tell them apart.
As their discussions proceeded, it was striking not only how well they knew each other, but also how tolerant they were of each other's foibles. The event, hosted by Prince Charles's International Business Leaders Forum, took place under the Chatham House rule, so I can tell you what was said, but not who said it.
What brings businesses and NGOs together in the first place? Some companies meet NGOs when campaigners disrupt their operations. After a period of antagonism, the companies decide it makes more sense to get to know their opponents. Other companies and NGOs begin co-operating during disasters: the Asian tsunami of 2004 and Hurricane Katrina the following year were times when companies and NGOs put aside their differences to help the victims.
There are many examples of collaboration. Wal-Mart and Unilever look to the Rainforest Alliance to help them certify the coffee and tea they sell. Some companies get environmental organisations to check that their refrigeration systems are energy-efficient.
What is in it for the companies? First, contact with NGOs provides intelligence. If companies talk to campaigners, they know what the issues of the moment are. If a company waits until an NGO occupies its site and starts holding press conferences, it will struggle to catch up. If campaigners spark a consumer boycott, it may never catch up. "If you ignore NGOs you end up like the fur trade, with no market at all," one company leader said.
Second, company executives have their own values; many privately agree with NGOs. More important, companies know that many of their employees sympathise with NGOs. People want to feel proud of their companies, which is hard when NGOs criticise them.
Third, companies think a relationship with an NGO gives them a seal of approval, which they can tell their customers and staff about.
What is in it for the NGOs? This one is simple: companies donate money. They also deliver. They have staff around the world, they operate across borders and have technical expertise. The NGO representatives said their aim was to achieve results. Those they helped did not mind how. "They don't care who provides water as long as it's clean," one NGO supporter said.
Still, there are dangers on both sides. Both companies and NGOs have reputations to protect. Asked whether they conducted due diligence on NGOs, one company executive said: "They do due diligence on us."
Companies know NGOs have their own constituencies and are vulnerable to accusations of being co-opted. "We're not always going to agree," the chairman of one company said. "You've got to go into it knowing that in some areas they're still going to be critical of you. We're both brand owners. They have a brand as well."
I asked him later how he would feel if one of his NGO partners organised a protest against him. He shrugged. It had not happened yet, but it could. One campaign leader he had co-operated with telephoned him to warn him that the NGO objected to something his company was doing. They talked about it and there was no public protest. Companies hope personal relationships with NGOs will give them time to prepare a response before they are criticised.
I told the company chairman how struck I was by both sides' lack of faith in government. I didn't know if "disillusionment" was too strong a word. It was the right word, he said. Both sides were scathing about governments, particularly their inability to co-operate across borders.
This disenchantment was not just with corrupt, dictatorial governments but with democratic ones too. The company chairman said that short electoral cycles meant politicians had little incentive to deal with long-term problems. Someone else said both companies and NGOs were entrepreneurial and flexible. That made them more comfortable with each other than with governments.
Companies and NGOs are responsible to their own constituencies. They also act as checks on one another. But it should worry us that they need to step in where governments have failed, because neither companies nor NGOs formally answer to us as citizens.
"We have a close relationship with Greenpeace," he said.
Anyone who has seen television pictures of anti-globalisation riots and invasions of annual general meetings would be surprised how amiable companies and campaigners can be.
Early this month, on a gorgeous summer evening, as leaders of some of the world's top companies and non-governmental organisations gathered on the rooftop deck of London's National Theatre, it was impossible to tell them apart.
As their discussions proceeded, it was striking not only how well they knew each other, but also how tolerant they were of each other's foibles. The event, hosted by Prince Charles's International Business Leaders Forum, took place under the Chatham House rule, so I can tell you what was said, but not who said it.
What brings businesses and NGOs together in the first place? Some companies meet NGOs when campaigners disrupt their operations. After a period of antagonism, the companies decide it makes more sense to get to know their opponents. Other companies and NGOs begin co-operating during disasters: the Asian tsunami of 2004 and Hurricane Katrina the following year were times when companies and NGOs put aside their differences to help the victims.
There are many examples of collaboration. Wal-Mart and Unilever look to the Rainforest Alliance to help them certify the coffee and tea they sell. Some companies get environmental organisations to check that their refrigeration systems are energy-efficient.
What is in it for the companies? First, contact with NGOs provides intelligence. If companies talk to campaigners, they know what the issues of the moment are. If a company waits until an NGO occupies its site and starts holding press conferences, it will struggle to catch up. If campaigners spark a consumer boycott, it may never catch up. "If you ignore NGOs you end up like the fur trade, with no market at all," one company leader said.
Second, company executives have their own values; many privately agree with NGOs. More important, companies know that many of their employees sympathise with NGOs. People want to feel proud of their companies, which is hard when NGOs criticise them.
Third, companies think a relationship with an NGO gives them a seal of approval, which they can tell their customers and staff about.
What is in it for the NGOs? This one is simple: companies donate money. They also deliver. They have staff around the world, they operate across borders and have technical expertise. The NGO representatives said their aim was to achieve results. Those they helped did not mind how. "They don't care who provides water as long as it's clean," one NGO supporter said.
Still, there are dangers on both sides. Both companies and NGOs have reputations to protect. Asked whether they conducted due diligence on NGOs, one company executive said: "They do due diligence on us."
Companies know NGOs have their own constituencies and are vulnerable to accusations of being co-opted. "We're not always going to agree," the chairman of one company said. "You've got to go into it knowing that in some areas they're still going to be critical of you. We're both brand owners. They have a brand as well."
I asked him later how he would feel if one of his NGO partners organised a protest against him. He shrugged. It had not happened yet, but it could. One campaign leader he had co-operated with telephoned him to warn him that the NGO objected to something his company was doing. They talked about it and there was no public protest. Companies hope personal relationships with NGOs will give them time to prepare a response before they are criticised.
I told the company chairman how struck I was by both sides' lack of faith in government. I didn't know if "disillusionment" was too strong a word. It was the right word, he said. Both sides were scathing about governments, particularly their inability to co-operate across borders.
This disenchantment was not just with corrupt, dictatorial governments but with democratic ones too. The company chairman said that short electoral cycles meant politicians had little incentive to deal with long-term problems. Someone else said both companies and NGOs were entrepreneurial and flexible. That made them more comfortable with each other than with governments.
Companies and NGOs are responsible to their own constituencies. They also act as checks on one another. But it should worry us that they need to step in where governments have failed, because neither companies nor NGOs formally answer to us as citizens.