On the face of it, the arrangement – fully disclosed – makes a lot of sense.
Yet such partnerships between human rights organisations and companies are far
from common. Is the corporate sector too afraid of getting into bed with
firebrand campaigners or are worrisome NGOs keeping companies at bay? The answer
depends on who you ask.
Peter Frankental, economic relations programme director for Amnesty International UK, sees little room for partnerships with companies. In straitened times – in Britain, one in six charities say they may close owing to falling revenues – Frankental concedes there is "always a strong temptation" to get into bed with a corporate donor, but insists it should be resisted.
Amnesty's corporate partnerships policy places strict limits on the arrangements it can enter into. Just three companies gave Amnesty's UK branch more than £5,000 in 2012, with the bulk of corporate income coming from a credit card scheme offered by the Co-operative Bank, which earned around £220,000.
"Companies would be delighted – and many have approached us – wanting to co-brand and to develop joint campaigns on human rights, particularly on issues affecting their business," says Frankental. But Amnesty is "very wary", fearing that a firm may use it as a "fig leaf" to deflect future accusations.
Entering into a formal relationship can in turn undermine attempts to put
pressure on corporations, he explains. "That is one of the main dangers
for NGOs of forming partnerships with companies – that it will influence
organisational strategy and lead to NGOs adapting their strategies and
activities to whatever companies they are partnering with are willing to
fund."
Not all human rights charities are so reluctant to work with business. The Human Rights Campaign lobbies for the LGBT community and maintains a Corporate Equality Index, rating companies on their LGBT policies and practices. It counts American Airlines, Citi Group, Microsoft, Diageo, Bank of America, Chevron, Coca-Cola and Deloitte among its platinum and gold partners – requiring an annual pledge of $150,000 and $100,000 respectively.
"Of course they all share a common belief in our mission," says John Lake, HRC's corporate development director, explaining that these partnerships have enabled HRC to exert real influence on companies' internal policies. "But [the companies] also come to the table with [return on investment]-based motivations such as attracting and retaining LGBT talent or gaining the trust and loyalty of their LGBT customers and other stakeholders."
Kayla Shell, executive legal director at Dell, an HRC sponsor says the association gives tangible benefits to her business, helping to "strengthen customer, supplier and team member relationships". James Fisher, spokesman for defence contractor Booz Allen, another bronze sponsor, adds that its HRC partnership allows it to "attract, develop and retain a highly diverse and highly skilled workforce".
Does HRC not feel uneasy at partnering with large multinationals and defence contractors such as Booz Allen – better known as the former employer of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden? Some of these companies, such as Coca-Cola or Chevron, have been attacked vociferously in the past, rightly or wrongly, by other human rights-focused groups. "In order to change institutional environments like our movement has tried to do, you have to work with them," insists Lake.
Of course, companies are not always beating down the door to partner up. Those charities dealing with refugee or labour rights who may be in desperate need of funding often have a harder time attracting corporate donors.
Tansy Hoskins, author of Stitched Up: the Anti-Capitalist Book of Fashion, claims companies shy away from human rights organisations altogether in some sectors in favour of other more marketable causes. The fashion industry, she says, is particularly wary of talking about human rights.
"Partly it's because humans can talk back. Trade unions, shop stewards and labour organisers on the ground … can quite easily refute a press release in a way the Indonesian rainforest can't," Hoskins says. "A company can switch from plastic bags to paper bags, they can bring out a line of organic cotton T-shirts … These are all changes that they can get headlines or press releases out of, but it's not possible to do the same thing [with labour rights]."
Daniel Wordsworth, president and CEO of the American Refugee Committee, says that, as an organisation working for refugees and displaced persons, he finds it difficult to attract corporate supporters. As a result, the ARC has to be "open to change rather than expecting corporations to change".
"Corporations should not be seen as ATMs," he says. "[They] are very willing to partner with us if we give them a seat at the table and allow them to co-create solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Our challenge is to be creative, to understand the mix of resources corporations can offer, and to bring legitimate opportunities – beyond the financial – to the table."
Whether or not an organisation agrees to a partnership – through financial or in-kind donations, or a joint campaign – depends very much on what it is trying to achieve, says Arvind Ganesan, who runs Human Rights Watch's business and human rights division.
"Because we are a research and advocacy organisation, we want to make sure that we are always assiduously neutral, careful and objective in the work we do. That, in turn, will inherently restrict where and who you go to for money."
Ganesan suggests, nonetheless, that it is wrong to automatically pass judgment on those that do link up. "You've got to look at it through the lens of the institution," he says.
One thing is certain, however. No relationship between a human rights charity and a company will go unnoticed. "It may be a way of bolstering credibility, but it is also a way of inviting more scrutiny," he continues. "If a charity or a company touts their relationship with one or other … they are almost guaranteed to have somebody poke a hole in it."