Why Are FOE’s Bylaws So Difficult to Find?

Among one of the most popular activities of environmental NGOs is the issue of demands for corporate accountability. I don’t think that that’s a bad thing. Corporations, like any organization, can at times run roughshod over the rules. Just as the American system of government with its checks and balances on each branch of the public sector inspires accountability and transparency, having a similar system, albeit informal, in the private sector can prove beneficial. It can prove beneficial, though, only if those doing the oversight are ethical, open, and transparent. To whom are the eNGOs accountable?

Let’s use one major eNGO as an example. Friends of the Earth US (FOE-US), about which I’ve written frequently on this blog, is one of the largest eNGOs in world. A recent visit to the Web site of FOE-US (foe.org) revealed no information which would indicate how this eNGOs governs itself. Such information would be in the organization’s bylaws.

But my search on the foe.org site for the word “bylaws” yielded no results. Hmmm. I searched more deeply.

There was no bylaw information posted on the site, but they did post a collection of annual reports. I reviewed them.

My review of their annual reports, from 2003 through 2010, although filled with much glitzy and flashy information about their various campaigns (perhaps published there in an effort to induce donations) showed no information about organizational governance, not a whisper about the bylaws. (Speaking of 2003, please see my related post “Friends of the Earth Received Narrow Support” which demonstrates that for the years 2003 through 2006 FOE-US received almost 60% of its funding from only 11 donors.) Concerning governance, the closest thing I found in those annual reports were simple listings of the board of directors members and listings of the staff. I already assume they have a board of directors and a staff, but telling me their names doesn’t tell me how the organization is run.

How are those members of the board of directors elected? Are they even elected? Or are they appointed?
If the members of the board of directors are elected, who votes for them? The donors? The rank and file members? The staff? Other members of the board of directors?
If they are appointed, who appoints them?
If the donors vote for them, how many votes do the donors get apiece? Do they get one vote per donor, or do they get one vote per dollar donated? Sort of like shareholders in a corporation.

The answers to all of these questions, and others I haven’t taken the time to pose, are critical in assessing whether this corporate monitor, this organization that regularly calls for corporate accountability, is itself accountable and therefore worthy of doing the job that they appoint themselves to do.

Just as any organization can run rough shod over the rules, eNGOs are no exception.

If FOE-US made its corporate bylaws accessible on its Web site or reprinted them in their annual reports, their accountability would become more apparent.

Continue reading Why Are FOE’s Bylaws So Difficult to Find?

Rainforest Action Network – Where’s Your Accountability & Transparency?

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.

Will Too Much Transparency Be Bad for All of Us?

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?

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes