Oil-Company Donations Raise Questions About Scandal and Charity

The drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has put BP’s corporate donations in the spotlight—and served as a stark reminder of the public-relations controversies charities risk when they accept money from companies.

The blowback has been strongest for environmental organizations that have received money from the oil company responsible for the disaster.

Over the past two decades, the Nature Conservancy, in Arlington, Va., has worked with BP on several projects, such as helping the company identify ways it could reduce environmental harm caused by a natural-gas development it was planning in Wyoming. During that time, the company has given $10-million to the organization.

Conservation International, in Arlington, Va., and Aquarium of the Pacific, in Long Beach, Calif., are among the other environmental groups that have received money from BP.

Glenn T. Prickett, the Nature Conservancy’s chief external-affairs officer, says the organization is committed to working with the key players that have an impact on the areas the group seeks to protect, which sometimes means working with energy companies.

“The world’s demand for energy is increasing pretty rapidly, so we’re realistic about the fact that energy development is going to happen in a lot of the places that we care about in the United States and in other countries,” he says.

According to Mr. Prickett, the number of donors who have raised concerns about the organization’s work with BP has been “fairly small,” and fewer than a dozen have canceled their memberships.

Reviewing Proposals

The Nature Conservancy says it has a well-defined set of procedures it uses to weigh whether a company will be a good partner.

Before the Nature Conservancy enters into a deal, says Mr. Prickett, the organization investigates the business’s environmental practices, both in the region where the project would take place and across the company as a whole.

What’s more, the organization’s conflict-of-interest policy bars board members or senior executives who have ties to a company under review from being involved in decisions about the partnership, and a risk-assessment committee evaluates all projects—whether they involve companies or not—that could pose an environmental risk or threaten the group’s reputation.

“We’re trying to be as transparent as we can be about our relationships with the private sector in general and BP in particular, but not out of any defensiveness,” says Mr. Prickett. “We were transparent about it ahead of time, because we felt that working with the private sector was the right thing to do to advance our mission.”

Not everyone has shared that view.

Says Emily Taylor, director of business development at SponsorPark, a company in Omaha that connects corporations with sponsorship opportunities: “The average consumer would look at this partnership and perceive it to be BP’s way of buying a go-green image and the Nature Conservancy’s way of taking money they need regardless of affiliation or complementary missions.”

To decide whether to work with a corporation, charities need to think about the worst possible outcome and ask whether they would still be proud of the relationship, Ms. Taylor advises.

Some environmental groups have decided to forgo donations from oil companies and others that could be perceived by the public as creating a conflict.

The Environmental Defense Fund, which in the past has helped BP with its carbon-trading program, never takes contributions from companies it works with or from companies “whose operations would be impacted by the positions that we take,” says Gwen Ruta, the charity’s vice president for corporate partnerships.

In addition to concern about public perceptions, says Ms. Ruta, the charity wants to ensure that technological and other advances it helps spur can be shared with many companies.

“There just can’t be any sort of expectation of ‘proprietary-ness’ about the innovation,” she says.

A Beer Company’s Offer

Charities across the country have been paying close attention to the fallout from the relationship between BP and the Nature Conservancy.

Some have been reminded of their own brushes with questions from the public.

During the depths of the nation’s banking crisis, United Way Worldwide received some inquiries from the public about its partnerships on programs with companies in the financial industry, says Sal Fabens, director of public relations for the charity.

“We really were able to explain that we’re working with companies that want to make a difference” in society by working with United Way, says Ms. Fabens.

In some cases, the United Way has turned down corporate partnerships.

For example, two years ago a major beer manufacturer, working with a top retailer, was starting a new product and offered United Way Worldwide the chance to benefit from a marketing partnership that included a percentage of sales with a guaranteed minimum amount of money, says Randy Punley, the organization’s director of corporate partnerships.

United Way declined because of its policy to avoid national promotions and “co-branding” efforts with certain industries, including alcohol, beer, firearms, and tobacco.

“The offer was exactly what we look for in any kind of partnership deal,” says Mr. Punley, “and because it involved a top-tier retailer, it was a little more difficult to say no. But at the end of the day, both the retailer and beer manufacturer understood why we did. You have to know what you stand for.”

Greg Donaldson, national vice president for corporate communications at the American Cancer Society, in Atlanta, says the criticism about BP’s donations “certainly provides a teachable moment as it relates to how we talk about our relationships with companies and corporations who want to contribute to our work.”

He says the Cancer Society for years has worked to develop policies and practices to identify “areas of concern and to try to anticipate and mitigate risk.”