Activist NGOs are having to decide when to remain the scourge of the corporate sector or to constructively engage with old foes

Spring speaks of new life and green shoots. For many companies, it also heralds a more prosaic occurrence – the AGM season.
 

The annual general meetings of the world’s largest corporations are designed with their investors in mind. Accounts from management need to be given, votes cast and dividends shared out. At least, that’s the official purpose.
 

Activist campaigners see things differently. For them, AGMs present a shot at the limelight. Depending on the creativity of their slogans and the outlandishness of their stunts, the presence of so many suits provides a prime opportunity to get their message heard – and, if possible, televised.
 

This season has been no different. In mid-April, representatives from Canada’s First Nations travelled with their banners to London. Their aim: to raise a ruckus about BP’s proposed exploitation of tar sands in Alberta.
 

A few weeks later, protestors gathered outside Barclays’ AGM to complain about the bank’s impact on food prices. Likewise, mining company Barrick Gold attracted a doorstep rally on account of its alleged environmental abuses.
 

Few companies attract more attention than Nestlé. In 2010, Greenpeace activists paraded as orang-utans and staged a sit-in to draw attention to the reported impact on the Indonesian rainforest of the company’s palm oil purchases.
 

This year’s Nestlé AGM sparked controversy too. Health campaigners grouped together in Lausanne to object to a former Unicef director taking a position on the Swiss company’s board.
 

Their entry was barred and the candidate’s appointment was confirmed. A similar story played out at the other protests. BP, Barclays and Barrick Gold all sailed through their AGMs with agendas unchanged.
 

So why bother? For two reasons, campaigners say. One, to raise awareness. Publicity is the lifeblood of the activist movement and public support the basis of its legitimacy.
 

Two, to effect long-term change. Campaigns such as the Nestlé Boycott (to which the recent AGM protest was linked) help bring about tougher legislation, according to Patti Rundall, policy director at activist group Baby Milk Action.
 

“In this way we have indeed brought about some significant changes in Nestlé’s marketing and those of other companies – but it’s inevitably a long haul,” she says.
 

The history of corporate activism boasts some major victories. Greenpeace can boast more than most, from Shell’s decision not to dump the Brent Spar oil rig at sea to electronics giant Philips’ moves towards e-waste recycling.
 

Every activist group claims its scalps. Yet it could be argued that corporate activists are winning battles while losing the war. Climate change, unsustainable consumption, corporate greed: they all continue.
 

The sheer competition for air-time is making the “gotcha” style of AGM activism less effective, too. Eric Olsen, senior vice-president for advisory services at the industry network Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), points out: “There’s so much information out there, it’s hard to get attention.”
 

So is it time for a change of tactics?

Tactical switch

Some in the activist wing think it is. Recent years have seen an increasing willingness on the part of some campaign groups to sit round a table with their former corporate foes. The strategy is common enough to earn itself a nametag: constructive engagement.  
 

It all comes down to pragmatism, the thinking runs. Campaign groups exist to see change. That can come from the barricades, but it can also come from the boardroom. If the first isn’t working (or isn’t working fast enough), then why not give the second a go?
 

Coercion versus cooperation. Governments have been playing the game for years with rogue states. Now campaign groups are trying the same.
 

One with a long record of this push-pull approach is Amnesty International. For years, the UK-based group campaigned vociferously against corporate involvement in human rights abuses.
 

It still does. It recently took out full-page adverts in several UK newspapers to alleged environmental damage by Shell in Nigeria. (Publication of the adverts coincided with the oil major’s AGM.)
 

In the early 1990s, meanwhile, Amnesty set up a business subgroup. The cooperative initiative was established with the explicit purpose of “encouraging” companies to prevent abuses related to their business operations.
 

Naturally, companies prefer the less-combative approach. Nestlé vice-president Janet Voûte even took it upon herself to advise protestors at this year’s AGM to use a “carrot and stick”.
 

She did so with good precedent. Last year, the Swiss consumer giant entered an extraordinary agreement with Greenpeace. The move will see the campaign group monitor Nestlé’s efforts to prevent its palm oil purchases leading to illegal deforestation. 
 

No money changes hands, so Greenpeace’s claims to independence are not watered down. Nor is the campaign group helping Nestlé implement its efforts – that role falls to a pro-business non-profit group, the Forest Trust, which owes its origins to corporate funding.
 

Activist groups are not always as hands-off. Animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) says it is happy to endorse animal-friendly companies. High street brands Top Shop and H&M – both of which have fur-free commitments in place – are among those that enjoy such a “symbiotic relationship”.
 

“It’s great for them and it’s great for us as well because we’re promoting companies that have good ethical policies,” says Mimi Beckheki, foundation manager at Peta UK.
 

The opposite is also true. Those that fail to heed Peta’s demands can expect a full-on “name and shame” campaign. “Bloody” Burberry, the fashion retailer, is currently the focus of exactly that.
 

Determining the good from the bad is not always so black-and-white. Campaigners sometimes find themselves working with a large company on one issue while the two battle it out on another.
 

Greenpeace’s relationship with Nestlé epitomises such a position. The environmental crusader is working with the company over palm oil, while simultaneously challenging it about the genetic modification of food crops.
 

That’s as it should be, says Greenpeace’s senior climate adviser, Charlie Kronick. Campaign groups retain the prerogative to praise and prod in equal measure.
 

“No NGO remains a permanent friend or has a fixed position with regard to a company like Nestlé,” he says.
 

Loretta Minghella, director of Christian Aid, agrees. The anti-poverty group keeps a “hard and fast rule” about its right to speak out whenever and against whomever it chooses.
 

“We want a constructive engagement with business, but we don’t say that we won’t criticise them in public,” she says.
 

Campaign groups may see the logic in their position, but their supporters and the companies they engage with might be excused for being confused.

Balancing act

Judging just how far to engage with the corporate sector is tricky. Campaign groups’ greatest asset is their independence. Go too far and charges of co-option will be sure to follow. 
 

“It’s an open secret that some NGOs have got themselves into a bit of a muddle as to whether they’re a paid-for advisory service, a non-profit validation partner or a hard-hitting campaigning organisation,” says Brendan May, founder of the Robertsbridge Group, a sustainability consultancy, and contributing editor to Ethical Corporation.
 

Craig Bennett, policy and campaigns director at environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth (FoE), concedes that there is an “obvious danger” to engaging with companies. 
 

For that reason, FoE is very wary about allowing companies to use its logo. Likewise, it avoids accepting any major corporate donations – although small businesses do make a “very limited” contribution to its finances.
 

Not all non-profits are so assiduous. Save the Children recently withdrew its support for taxes on fizzy drinks in the US. Critics allege the move came after the children’s charity received substantial grants from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Save the Children says that the issue was too controversial and was not a good fit with its overall strategy. 
 

While not an activist group as such (although Save the Children does lobby governments), the parallel is clear.
 

Becoming too cosy with companies not only results in negative reputational consequences for activist groups. It can also impact their perspectives and relationships, says Patti Lynn, campaigns director at US campaigner Corporate Accountability International (see box).
 

“That affects which points of view those groups are likely to take into account,” she adds.
 

Then there’s corporate spin to worry about. Baby Milk Action’s Rundall cites the case of the Methodist Church. The religious body bought shares in Nestlé with a view to exerting its influence through investor activism. But Nestlé “falsely” presented the investment as a show of support, Rundall alleges.
 

For all the dangers, few campaign groups completely shut the door to the private sector. FoE is typical in being willing to enter into dialogue with companies. It will even share a public platform when such cooperation furthers its agenda.
 

FoE recently partnered with engineering firm Arup, for instance. The two worked on a joint report about policies to scale up renewable energy use in the UK. Bennett describes their joining of expertise as “extremely useful”.
 

Similarly, Oxfam worked with Royal Mail, National Grid and other companies in the UK to lobby the then prime minister Gordon Brown on climate change ahead of the April 2009 G20 meeting in London.

Blurred lines

Some maintain that such approaches are blurring the lines and weakening the influence of campaign groups. Others say they prove a growing awareness by campaigners and businesses that their agendas are not as far apart as once thought.
 

Dax Lovegrove, head of business relations at WWF, echoes the views of many in the non-profit community in expressing the “feeling of powerlessness” that used to come from “constantly throwing stones from the sidelines”.
 

Pragmatism explains the subsequentrapprochement as well, he adds, saying: “If we are going to arrive at sustainable solutions, it is going to need businesses and civil society to work together much more than they have done in the past.”
 

However, many commentators argue that campaign groups such as Greenpeace have been far more effective in changing company behaviour, by attacking and then praising them, rather than more moderate “safe” groups such as WWF and Conservation International.

There is a growing feeling that policy has become subordinate to fundraising, and that this is damaging the conservation agenda. Conservation International was recently subject to a sting investigation by activists Don’t Panic. A CI representative was secretly recorded apparently offering to help set up environmental programmes for Don’t Panic researchers, posing as representatives of an international arms company, in return for the company paying large fees to become a CI partner.

Culturally and ideologically, the transition from activism to engagement is not an easy one for campaign groups. Internally, many are still debating exactly which – if any – companies to engage with and how best to do so.
 

Some organisations remain split. Take the anti-bribery non-profit group Transparency International (TI). Of its hundred or so national chapters, some draw the line at simple advocacy, others run training for companies, while others advise businesses on policy implementation.
 

Such diversity is “normal”, according to Jermyn Brooks, chair of the group’s business advisory board. The context in which each chapter operates differs. So too, therefore, will their strategies.
 

But the natural flow is towards greater engagement rather than less, he says. It comes back to what campaign organisations exist for: namely, change.
 

Effecting change often means stopping companies doing the wrong thing – an objective to which direct action is well suited. But that’s not always the end of it. Frequently it’s necessary to show them how to do the right thing, too.
 

This second step is sometimes simple. It doesn’t take a genius to start paying a fair wage, for instance. Reducing carbon emissions, promoting best practices among suppliers or, in the case of TI, introducing anti-bribery policies are not so straightforward.
 

“When you try to tell business how to work better, they say ‘give us the tools’. So you develop tools and methodologies. Then the next question is, ‘can you help us put it into effect?’” Brooks says.
 

In such cases, the expertise and advice of special interest campaigners is invaluable. That companies should invite them to help in that change process is, in itself, a victory.
 

Some campaign groups remain adamantly opposed to engaging with business, but the general trend appears to be going in one direction.
 

That could change, warns BSR’s Olsen. “There has been lots of soul-searching among the NGO community about the fruits achieved through this period of increased collaboration.”
 

Some voices, he suggests, are saying it “might be time … to go back to the barricades”. Amnesty International appears to be among that number. The human rights group recently closed its business unit.
 

Engagement strategies must begin to demonstrate the shoots of success if campaigners are not to lose faith. If that happens, it’ll be a long winter of discontent for everyone.

Companies in the firing line

Greenpeace: The environmental activist has international banks HSBC and BNP Paribas in its sights for their willingness to finance a nuclear plant on India’s earthquake-prone west coast.
 

Peta: Animal rights group Peta has roped in actress Kate Winslett and a host of other celebrities to oppose Fortnum & Mason’s decision to continue stocking foie gras. A previous campaign saw fellow retailers Selfridges and Harvey Nichols remove it from their selves.
 

UK Uncut: High street names including Boots, Vodafone, Tesco, NatWest and Lloyds are all lambasted as “tax dodgers” by this new UK campaign group. In times of spending cuts, its message is hitting home.
 

Friends of the Earth:Unilever, the current poster child of the sustainability movement, is facing FoE’s wrath for its palm oil purchases. The campaign group claims a Unilever-backed certification scheme to stop palm oil’s impact on deforestation is mere greenwashing.
 

UFCW: North America’s main food industry union is harrying the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, for better pay and working conditions though its Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign.

How to challenge big business: Patti Lynn, campaigns director, Corporate Accountability International

Boston-based activist group Corporate Accountability International (CAI) focuses its campaign activities in three prime areas: water, food and tobacco. Its track record includes involvement in high-profile boycotts challenging Nestlé and GE, plus a long-running campaign challenging the big tobacco companies.
 

Among recent success, CAI recently persuaded Pepsi and Nestlé to reveal on-pack information about the sources of their bottled water. CAI is also a driving force behind the creation of the world’s first global public health treaty for tobacco control.
 

CAI campaigns director Patti Lynn says she is concerned about the “overall trend away from accountability and towards the ‘partnership’ paradigm”.
 

She says such partnerships are “often ill-defined and hard to monitor”. Having the company’s ear does not necessarily mean change will be faster or at a deeper level. “I prefer principled engagement and a range of strategies that guarantee pressure for change, conducted in a non-violent fashion, of course. This can be challenging, but it can create conditions for longer-lasting change.” 
 

The CAI is not above working with companies one-to-one, though. “We’ll enter into direct dialogue where we can. This gives us an opportunity to communicate our campaign demands directly to corporate decision-makers. We articulate, discuss and clarify what action we hope to see from them, and we hear directly what their response is or will be.”
 

Money changing hands makes Lynn uncomfortable, though. “At the very least, this can create an impression of collusion and dampens an organisation’s independence,” she says.
 

At some level, Lynn argues, it also means the organisation is forgoing leverage it might otherwise have because of its outside position. “But above all, dependence on corporation contributions can blur or distort a campaign group’s mission, causing it to lose sight of long-term objectives and bottom-line results.”  
 

The tone and shape of corporate accountability activism tends to change every few years. Recent examples such as the financial crisis and the BP oil spill have “fostered outrage from broad swathes of the public”, Lynn points out. 
 

In some ways, the challenges for activists challenging corporate abuse and influence are greater today than ever before. On the other hand, Lynn says, more opportunities exist to mobilise for real and lasting change.
 

For more information on Corporate Accountability International: www.StopCorporateAbuse.org