This article in yesterday's Washington Post explains that the Nature Conservancy, the large environmental non-profit, is a "business partner" with BP and has taken about $10 million in cash and land from the oil giant and its corporate affiliates. The article explains that, in the wake of the environmental disaster in the Gulf, some of the Nature Conservancy's (former) supporters are livid that the Conservancy's partnership with BP partnership "has lent BP an Earth-friendly image." The article notes the Conservancy's position as well: that taking money from BP and forging a relationship helps reform bad environmental practices from within. Others disagree:
Nate Swick, a blogger and dedicated bird watcher from Chapel Hill, N.C., chastised [Conservancy Chief Executive Mark] Tercek on the [Conservancy's website] for not adequately disclosing the Conservancy's connections to BP and for not working to hold the company accountable. Swick said in an interview that he considered BP's payments to the organization to be an obvious attempt at "greenwashing" its image. "You have to wonder whether the higher-ups in the Nature Conservancy are pulling their punches," said Swick, who added that he admires the work the Conservancy does in the field.
The article notes that other environmental non-profits take money from the companies whose practices they seek to control or reform. I'd be curious to hear from others about non-profits of all political persuasions that take money from for-profit companies or from government.


The book Green Inc has a lot in it about this kind of greenwashing and how many industries partner with, or donate to, these charities to make themselves appear Green. It's hogwash...charity followed by a press release is advertising, not charity. Shame on these org's for selling out. I know they need money but they're fools to sell their souls to the devil. At the very least they could make it clear that a corporate donation won't buy silence or complicity.
Posted by: CS | Friday, July 09, 2010 at 01:49 PM
Thank you so much for pointing out this error on my part. I have made the correction.
Posted by: Brian | Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Your link to the article in the WaPo doesn't seem to be pointing to the correct URL.
Posted by: CLPreader | Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 08:49 AM