May 25, 2010 | Read Time: 3 minutes
The fallout from the relationship between the Nature Conservancy and BP, the company responsible for the massive oil spill off the Gulf Coast, as detailed in a Washington Post article, is a good reminder to all charities of the importance of choosing partners carefully, say nonprofit experts.
But commentators disagree on whether the environmental group’s ties to the oil company represented a lapse in judgment.
“The fact of the Nature Conservancy’s taking funding from BP for years, no matter how small a percentage it is of the overall organizational budget, is a very bad sign of organizational values gone missing or soft,” Nancy Schwartz, a marketing consultant who works with charities, said in an interview on Katya’s Non-Profit Marketing Blog. “And once those values are endangered, resultant policy decisions are, too.”
To rehabilitate its reputation, the Nature Conservancy has to acknowledge that accepting money from BP was a mistake and make a policy not to take money from natural-resource mining companies going forward, says Ms. Schwarz.
Jack Siegel, a Chicago lawyer, is more sympathetic.
“Let’s face it, raising $10-million through a relationship with a large corporation is much more efficient than raising $10-million through a direct-marketing campaign seeking $10, $25, and $50 contributions,” Mr. Siegel writes on his Charity Governance blog. “Presumably by forging partnerships with large corporations, the Conservancy also can have some impact on their environmental policies.”
Nonetheless, he writes, all charities would do well to ask three questions whenever they are considering a joint venture with a corporation: “First, what is motivating the business to enter into the arrangement? Second, what can go wrong? Third, what are we going to do if something does go wrong?”
Crisis Communications
The Nature Conservancy, meanwhile, has turned to social media to tell its side of the story.
On Tuesday, Mark Tercek, chief executive of the Nature Conservancy, and Glenn Prickett, the organization’s director of external affairs, answered questions during an online discussion on the organization’s Web site so that participants could “have every opportunity to ask pointed questions of our leadership.”
On its home page, the Nature Conservancy is highlighting a May 8 blog entry in which Peter Kareiva, the group’s chief scientist, discussed the organization’s work with BP and state and federal agencies to prevent and mitigate the environmental effects of natural-gas extraction in Colorado and Wyoming.
“Look, I know that energy extraction is sometimes environmentally damaging, just as roads, ports, biofuels, and even desert solar panels can be,” Mr. Kareiva wrote. “In fact, Conservancy scientists engage with the energy industry precisely because that industry does often harm the environment.”
The blog item, which did not prompt any discussion when it was first posted, has received a steady stream of comments since the newspaper article was published, many of which are critical of the group’s decision to work with BP and accept donations from the company.
“It is clear from this article that the Nature Conservancy is reluctant to criticize BP,” wrote a person identified as Ananda. “This is exactly the reason [the] Nature Conservancy should not work with companies like BP. The true test is whether the funding has compromised your ability to say it like it is.”
The charity’s employees have been monitoring the discussion closely and responding to criticism.
