In her 2010 book, The Environment and International Relations, professor Kate O’Neil noted that in 1990 there were 400 international non-government organisations (NGOs). Today there are more than 1.4 million. However, the world is in a worse condition now compared with 1990. This begs the question: what have the massive incomes and activities such as protests and certifications actually achieved over the past 20 years?
In Green Inc, author Christine MacDonald published the salaries of senior staff at the world’s biggest environmental groups. She said the head of the Natural Resources Defence Council gets US$757,914. The president of Wilderness Society is paid US$294,063. The president of WWF receives US$347,190 for what is a part-time job.
At the top of these groups, a few people direct global strategies and collect massive pay packets. But the actual groundwork is done by staff and an army of hard-working volunteers who no doubt join the organisations to battle against environmental injustice.
MacDonald reveals that the green economy of global protest groups is based on a financial model very similar to the companies many of them protest against. Professor O’Neill goes on to say the largest environment groups are unaccountable and secretive at the top and aggressively reject any hints of criticism. So while they garner a large amount of money from public donations and corporate and government funding, they often provide little information in the way the money is spent or how they develop their global strategies.
Why was there so little protest against BP by any of the largest environmental NGOs during and after the world’s biggest oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Why was there little – if any – protesting by big green groups against Union Carbide after the dioxin pollution of Sydney Harbour, now referred to as the world’s third most polluted harbour?
US medical doctors have called on fast-food chain McDonald’s to stop marketing to children, by asking the fast food giant to retire Ronald McDonald. At the same time WWF, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have joined in a pact to address global food shortages.
Recent research by professor Ian Roberts in the UK reveals the US is home to 6% of the world’s population but more than 30% of the world population weight – yet US fast food and soft drink giants are going to save the world?
There has been a recent global strategy by Greenpeace to attack KFC, which only sells Pepsi and is a major rival of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola. This seems fortunate timing.
The point of this criticism is that many people look to green groups as the world’s conscience on ecological and social issues, not as purveyor of marketing strategies. Like every part of society and business, certification schemes and big international environmental groups need to be accountable for their strategies and claims. Otherwise it’s just greenwashing in a cute animal suit.
If they don’t have to be accountable, maybe I should start one in the near future and join the gold rush?
Phillip Lawrence is a PhD scholar, consultant and speaker who specialises in print and the environment
Comment below to have your say on this story.
If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.
Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter