A series that runs every Tuesday, where I ask questions unrelated to the environment, fair trade, or local politics that I’ve been wondering about but haven’t been able to google the answers to. Any advice is appreciated.
So I’ve been researching the relationship between Starbucks and Conservation International. CI gets a lotta money from Starbucks, and Starbucks gets a lotta good PR from CI.
And somewhere in there, hopefully a lotta good things happen for the environment, cuz CI’s mission‘s “to conserve the Earth’s living heritage, our global biodiversity, and to demonstrate that human societies are able to live harmoniously with nature.”
So I was looking into CI’s board of directors, which former Starbucks CEO, Orin Smith, is on, to see what that was about.
And at that point, I sorta lost the Starbucks focus — cuz CI’s board of directors is a rather motley group! Yes, we have some of the expected people — various environmentalists and conservationists, a dude from Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, and even an obligatory celebrity: Harrison Ford.
But the board also lists Rob Walton, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Walmart, and The Lord Browne of Madingley, Group Chief Executive of BP.
What is up with that?
This whole research project began on Jordan‘s request: “We as consumers and activists need to look closely at the content of the standards, who is writing the standards, and exactly who is monitoring and certifying,” he said.
True ’nuff. Except I’m getting rather disillusioned here. Why’s BP and Walmart on the board of directors of a enviro-oriented nonprofit?
I guess I’m wondering if someone can give me a better idea of what exactly a board of directors does at a nonprofit corp, or at CI specifically. How does someone get on the board, and can the board lead the nonprofit awry?
I’ll try asking CI for its thoughts too, but was wondering if anyone out there might have a better idea of what this might mean, from a perspective outside CI.
Boards of Directors have the final say on most decisions made by a non-profit. Most people on a board have neither the time nor the inclination to micromanage, but they do set the general policy. The other purpose for a board is that its members do fundraising. So, if one wants to be paid, as opposed to fired, one does what one’s board says to do, and one keeps the representatives of WalMart and BP happy.
Comment by esteban — September 12, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Keep also in mind that having an influential board of directors guarantees more funds. Unknown board members means less guests who can fling those $50,000 donations at you.
Unless you can find actual evidence that WalMart/BP influence policy in a non-environmental direction, I would assume innocence.
Sure, be watchful – but don’t assume it’s their personal mission to kill the environment. That’s really just a side effect of their day jobs. (If BP could make more money by *not* selling oil, they’d do so in a heartbeat)
Comment by Robert 'Groby' Blum — September 12, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Depending on the non-profit and the Board member, most Directors give and raise money and gladhand other bigwigs, resulting in more fundraising and/or policy.
Clearly, CI is helping some shady org’s greenwash their rep by having directors on their board (and also possibly assuaging some guilty consciences by people who know what they do to make money is bad). But CI may also be working to help these directors push their corp’s in a greener direction.
So I agree with Groby: watch like a hawk for nefarious behind-the-scenes action (b/c the Board is indeed in charge) but don’t write them off straight off.
Comment by erin — September 12, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Prominent board members all about money for CI, look what I found on CI’s ’05 Financial summary:
http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/downloads/ci_05_financials.pdf
“REVENUE CI raised $92.7 million in
FY 2005, almost double that of
FY 2004. Most notably, The Walton
Family Foundation gave a generous
donation of $21 million to fund
marine science and ocean protection
programs over several years.”
What disturbs me the most is not the green washing Walmart and other corporations get from having their CEO on the board of CI but the fact that of none of their semi-permanent endowment over $100 million is invested with a social or environmental criteria. This money can have a powerful impact positive or negative. Shouldn’t it be in line with their mission and values? My guess is that it probably would be were it not for certian board members with direct conflicts of interest.
Comment by Devin — September 13, 2006 @ 10:00 am
FWIW, Charity Navigator gives CI its top rating.
Comment by Jasmin — September 13, 2006 @ 10:31 am
I tend to agree with the expressed concerns about green-washing, and I do think that NGO’s often give cover to corporations (whether the NGO’S mean to or not) but this long Fortune magazine article suggest that the CI/Wal-Mart connection has helped push Wal-Mart in the right direction.
I’ll be curious what others think, especially as I’m usually on the other side of this discussion.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/07/8382593/index.htm
THE GREEN MACHINE
Lee Scott is no tree-hugger. But Wal-Mart’s CEO says he wants to turn the world’s largest retailer into the greenest. The company is so big, so powerful, it could force an army of suppliers to clean up their acts too. Is he serious?
By Marc Gunther, Fortune Magazine
July 31 2006
Comment by Rodney North — September 13, 2006 @ 10:36 am
I think everyone is being a bit overly judgemental on this one. I don’t really see the greenwashing here. If you were a Wal-Mart consumer or even a shareholder I don’t think you’d ever know that a Walton was on CI board unless you were interested in CI. It will be interesting to see if Wal-Mart walks the walk but it sounds like Walton’s interaction with CI is having more impact on Wal-Mart’s operations and not vice versa. Why doesn’t anyone see this as a positive? I thought following the herd was a bad thing; even if it’s a small herd. We should all try to keep open minds.
Comment by james — September 15, 2006 @ 12:58 am
Everyone, james? Cuz I thought most people said check out what the CI does, then judge for yrself — most kept a v. open mind. Which is what I’ll be doing, based on my readers’ advice –
Comment by Siel — September 15, 2006 @ 9:39 pm