Last August, I posted on this blog an article about the level of democracy in Greenpeace. Specifically, that article, entitled “Greenpeace Voting Incestuous,” pointed out that for Greenpeace, Inc., the primary protest and campaigning organization of Greenpeace USA, a group called “the voting members” selects the members of the Greenpeace, Inc. Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors of Greenpeace, Inc. selects the voting members. Very cozy.
I didn’t put the word “incestuous” into that article’s title for no reason. The degree of democracy operating within Greenpeace, Inc. is fairly low. And in today’s article, I also didn’t put “incestuous” into the title for no reason either.
Today we’re going to take a look at the level of democracy at play in another Greenpeace USA organization. In this post we’ll look at the voting procedures of Greenpeace Fund, Inc. What’s the difference between Greenpeace, Inc. and Greenpeace Fund, Inc.
Basically, Greenpeace USA is made up of two separate corporations. One is Greenpeace, Inc. which is a 501(c)(4) organization. The other Greenpeace corporation, which is not as well known, is Greenpeace Fund, Inc. That’s the one we’re discussing today. This corporation is a 501(c)(3) organization. What’s the difference between the two?
Greenpeace, Inc. is the well-known corporate protest organization that one usually thinks of when the word “Greenpeace” is uttered. Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is essentially a foundation which funds much of Greenpeace, Inc.’s operation.
For more information about the technical differences between a (3) and a (4), please let Wikipedia explain, although to enjoy the balance of today’s post you don’t need to know much more about those differences.
Greenpeace USA makes their bylaws, for both corporations, available on their Web site. Kudos to them for the transparency on this information. Not every protest organization I study is as open. But it’s not necessarily their transparency that I am criticizing today. It’s their lack of democracy, and therefore their lack of accountability, that I criticize today.
In the Greenpeace Fund, Inc. bylaws its says:
“Section 2.1 – No Voting Members
This corporation shall not have any members within the meaning of Section 5056 of the California Corporations Code.” (Note: Greenpeace Fund, Inc. is incorporated in California even though the main office is in Washington, D.C.)
Section 5056 says with regard to a definition of members that:
” ‘Member’ means any person who, pursuant to a specific provision of a corporation’s articles or bylaws, has the right to vote for the election of a director or directors . . .”
Translation? Simple. This means that there are no voting members in Greenpeace Fund, Inc.
No voting members? How un-democratic. But if there are no voting members, then how are decisions made in the governance of this organization? Again, simple. They’re made by the Board of Directors. Entirely.
So, then how does Greenpeace Fund, Inc. get a diversity of opinion injected into their decision-making process? Again, the simplest answer is the most obvious.
They don’t.
Their decision-making process is incestuous. Why do I say that?
Because in those same
Continue reading How Much More Incestuous Can Greenpeace Get?
As you may have noticed, recently I’ve been writing a lot about accountability, or rather the lack thereof, in various global activist groups such as Greenepeace, Friends of the Earth, and Rainforest Action Network. For a list of those articles, just click here.
Why this call for accountability? Why now?
Well, it’s not just a tit-for-tat given that the above mentioned activist groups often call upon corporations for accountability information. (See the articles in the above mentioned list for references to this.) Certainly corporations, multi-nationals in particular, given their wide influence upon society need to be accountable to those they affect. But isn’t it just as certain, especially given that activist influence on corporations has increased over the past couple of decades, that those same activists need to be more accountable than they have in the past to the public whose interests they profess to serve?
The research shown in my recent articles demonstrates that, for the groups studied, their concerns about releasing accountability information are lacking. The research also shows, in the few cases where the information was indeed available, that the control of the organization is very tight and highly parochial. Take for example my post entitled “Greenpeace Voting Incestuous.” In this example, Greenpeace did release very pertinent governance information, but this information shows that the governance of this highly influential organization is concentrated among very few individuals. Yet, Greenpeace claims support from over 12 million people. The governance information I found indicates that those 12 million people don’t get a say in how the organization is run. Why not? Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if Exxon-Mobil suddenly announced that its shareholders would no longer vote?
For activists to be less accountable than the companies they target is simply hypocritical.
This call for activist accountability is being made now because the influence of organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Rainforest Action Network has reached a critical mass. And if we allow business as usual to continue (pun intended) their narrowly defined influence over the goods and services we all consume may take us in a direction that we don’t want to go.
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) campaigns against various companies. One of the tactics employed in those campaigns is to demand accountability and transparency from the businesses it targets. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But when organizations demand accountability and transparency from companies, it is imperative that the demanders are at least equally, if not more, accountable and transparent.
Where is RAN’s accountability and transparency? It’s certainly not on their Web site.
A recent review of RAN’s Web site showed little to no information which would shed light on their accountability or transparency.
There was no information provided in the form of annual reports.
There was no information provided which would tell us how RAN governs itself.
There were no organizational bylaws provided.
There was no information provided which tells us how RAN’s board of directors is elected.
There was no information available on who votes for the board of directors.
There was very little information showing their financial condition; only information for fiscal year 2009 was given. (What about fiscal year 2010? As of the date of this post, RAN’s 2010 fiscal year had been over for 14 months.)
RAN is a non-profit, tax exempt 501 (c)(3) corporation which basically is supported by all taxpayers. (To learn how tax exempt organizations are supported by ALL tax payers, please see my post “Know More About NGOs. After All, You Pay For Them.“) In order to earn the respect of those who indirectly support them, RAN needs to be less hypocritical and more open about how it conducts its operations.
A few days ago, on the Greenpeace US Web site, I perused their By Laws. Click here if you would like to review them. (Why don’t they put this governance information into their Annual Report the way other organizations do?) After reading through the 31 pages, I concluded that Greenpeace US is a very tightly held organization, with the voting process closely controlled by a limited and carefully selected number of people. Let me explain.
Section 2.1a, Selection of Voting Members, states:
The Voting Members of this corporation (referred to in these Bylaws as the “members”) shall consist of those individuals designated by the Board of Directors.
In Section 2.1, the By Laws further state that the Board of Directors will select Voting Members based on their work experience with Greenpeace US, or other Greenpeace divisions, or on their leadership in the environmental movement, and that the total number of members will be between 40 and 100.
Now, here’s where the incestuousness comes in.
Section 2.3, Rights of Voting Members, says in sub-section A that Voting Members, among other “rights and privileges,” have:
The right to vote for member-elected directors of the corporation (Greenpeace US) as provided in these Bylaws.
Parentheses mine.
So, it appears here that the Board of Directors select the Voting Members and that the Voting Members select, at least some of, the directors on the board.
Such a governance policy provides for little openness, not much accountability, and sets up a situation where transparency can become clouded.
Again, why is it that Greenpeace US doesn’t publish this type of information in their Annual Report?
I recently reviewed the 2010 Annual Report for Greenpeace New Zealand. Of interest was the section entitled “Greenpeace New Zealand Governance,” which my readers can find on page 24 of the Annual Report PDF that is linked here.
The report explains that the Greenpeace NZ Executive Director is responsible for the general management of the organization and that the ED reports to the Board of Directors. Board members, of which there are six, are elected for a term of three years and are tasked with the responsibility that the organization is run in an ethical and effective manner, in keeping with Greenpeace objectives. The Board members are elected by the Voting
Assembly, which is a 35 person group of Greenpeace supporters or staff members from other regional Greenpeace offices, as well as 10 former Greenpeace NZ staff. The report further reveals that the ED and other senior managers work collaboratively with Greenpeace International to plan and implement strategies.
Nowhere in the governance section did I see a mention or an explanation of stakeholder input into the governance process. Stakeholder participation is something that activist groups regularly call for when they are dealing with corporations in an attempt to modify the behaviors of those corporations. And, in such instances, the activists generally point out that their group is one of the stakeholders that should be present at the corporate decision table.
Indeed, in the governance section of this Annual Report Greenpeace NZ states that they have signed on to the INGO Accountability Charter, which is an initiative to open up transparency of non-governmental organizations. The INGO Accountability Charter (see page 2) states that NGO stakeholders are to include:
“Those whose policies, programmes or behaviour we (the NGOS) wish to influence.”
Parenthesis mine
As I said above there was not a mention of those stakeholders in the Greenpeace NZ governance process, even though Greenpeace NZ has stated that they are on-board with the INGO Accountability Charter principles. Who would be some of those stakeholders? In the case of Greenpeace NZ, some of those stakeholders could be utilities, energy companies, dairy and farming concerns, religious groups, and neighborhood organizations.
The addition of such stakeholders to the Board of Greenpeace NZ would greatly add a level of credible accountability to the operations of this non-governmental organization, would help to encourage open and honest debate, and would help dispel any accusations of hypocrisy that might be attached to their form of governance.
Perhaps we’ll see a change in the 2011 Annual Report?
Activist and NGO calls upon companies to act in a more transparent fashion are fine, but only up to a point.
Although I am a business advocate, I’m absolutely not in favor of companies adopting questionable processes, cheating consumers, or raping the land. I am a business advocate to the point of business being necessary and beneficial for the larger society.
So when I hear calls for “transparency,” such as is the mantra of many a social media guru, I think that transparency directed at the interested consumer is good, but we can’t take those calls too far. As the adage goes, “Too much of anything is not a good thing.” Why would I say this? Let’s use the following quote as a point of illustration.
In a June 2008 Fast Company article entitled “Buying Local - Isn’t it really about Social and Environmental Responsibility?“, we see the oft-repeated call-to-action under the topic: Questions Conscious Consumers should ask:
Transparency and Accountability: is it possible for me to learn where the materials to make the good came from and who made, transported, distributed, and retails the good? Can I contact anyone of these organizations if I want to learn more?
Before I moved into the area of macro-marketing consulting and analysis of anti-corporate activism, I was a competitive intelligence (CI) analyst. I made my living by examining the strengths and weaknesses of my clients’ competitors. One thing that would have simplified my job as a CI analyst would have been more “transparency.” When I was a CI analyst, had I known: where my clients’ competitors sourced their materials, who transported them, who distributed them, and exactly who retailed them, my analyses would have been absolutely devastating to the competitors my clients were paying me to examine.
With that intelligence, I would have been able to easily zero in on the competitor’s cost profile and from there I would have easily been able to back into the competitor’s profit margin. Easily. Devastatingly. My clients would have been ecstatic. Good for my clients. Not so good for the competitor. That transparent competitor would have “shot themselves in the foot.”
In capitalist markets, and in America we still are a capitalist society at least for the time being, too much transparent information floating around can be bad for the business that releases that info. Excessive transparency can cause reduced competitiveness and with that reduction in competitiveness can go the company itself. “Self-imposed” transparency can cause a company to leave the marketplace, i.e. go out of business, taking the jobs of hundreds or thousands of individuals with it.
And with that company goes competitiveness across the industry. The companies left to compete in that marketplace, companies that are perhaps not as transparent, read that as “stupid,” become fewer, consolidating market power. With consolidation of power comes higher prices and fewer jobs through which the work force can finance those higher prices.
In other words, based upon my experiences as a CI consultant, what I can see as a product of too much corporate
Continue reading Will Too Much Transparency Be Bad for All of Us?
|
About  Here at " Richard Telofski on The War on Capitalism," I discuss and analyze the individuals and groups conducting campaigns against capitalism. In the articles on this site, I provide analysis on lesser known facts about this movement. More . . .
 |
Klout.com rates Richard as influential on the subject of activism. |
|
