Greenbacked Buddies

Should environmental advocacy groups take corporate money?

It's not an easy question, and there are always trade-offs. By taking the cash, the groups might have more influence over corporate practices. But of course, the reverse is also true.

Fortune magazine's look at several such tie-ups doesn't provide any answers, but writer Marc Gunther makes it clear that every case is different.

Conservation International CEO Peter Seligmann recently praised Fiji Water for its work to protect forests on its namesake island. It turns out that the privately held water-bottler pays Conservation International for their joint environmental work. And the company's owner, Stewart Resnick, and his wife sit on the group's board.

The Sierra Club gets money from Clorox, and the company gets to use the group's logo on some of its products.

As noted in this space recently, Coca-Cola won the praise of the World Wildlife Fund for its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. (That item, too, was based on an article by Marc Gunther, who has made something of a beat out of the enviro-corporate complex.)

Now Gunther reports that Coke has donated nearly $24 million to the WWF to help preserve river basins.

"All this is a dramatic turnabout from the time, not all that long ago, when big business and the environmental movement were frequently at loggerheads," Gunther notes. "Now they often share common goals, and those on both sides of these partnerships say it makes sense for companies to pay groups like Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund for their expert help."

As Conservation International's Glenn Prickett says, "Judge us on what we and the companies together are able to do for the environment."

Fair enough. And sometimes, these relationships can help both business and the environment. Starbucks' $7.5 million donation to Conservation International to develop environmental standards for coffee growers will help with Starbucks' future supply needs.

But that doesn't mean that such relationships don't present some moral hazard. Will the World Wildlife Fund speak up if it discovers that Coke is harming the environment in some way (leaving aside the fact that its whole business is pretty environmentally unfriendly)?

Patti Lynn of Corporate Accountability International—which is opposed to bottled water—told Gunther that such partnerships "often provide positive PR, and can distract from the genuine concerns that people are raising about the practices of the bottled water industry."

Groups that don't take corporate money include Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund. To various degrees, they all work with big business.

In the end, it seems like the current situation may be the best. As long as there are independent groups out there acting as watchdogs, having other groups working closely with companies is probably a good thing—even if they take money for it.

(Bottled water by Nrbelex/Wikipedia)