Shacking Up with the Enemy?

There is no question that, in its history, The Nature Conservancy has made great contributions to the environmentalist movement. Forming alliances with the opposition is an admirable way of attempting to reach mutual gains. Activist groups too often have negative experiences with corporate entities ranging from not having all of their demands met to (quite often) having corporations be unwilling to engage in dialogue or even worse, communicating for the sake of their image, yet having clear intentions to not make any modifications that will hurt profits—regardless of whatever moral implications might be involved. This dynamic too often leads activist groups to what (believe it or not) is a last resource: publicly criticizing the offending corporation(s).

If this three-part expose consists of true unveilings all around, I find it particularly shocking that The Nature Conservancy would not take an official stance on the two issues that environmental groups have devoted much effort to addressing: drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and Global Warming—especially if it had to do with its ties to corporations. In addition, having a close relationship with Exxon Mobil, a company that is notorious for its aggressive lobbying efforts against most environmental legislation, is to say the least questionable. However, as a public relations principle, the idea of an environmental group forming relationships with “the enemy,” as long as positive outcomes are being reached, is preferable to not having any dialogue at all.