Preserving the legacy of Bay Area Action’s environmental work from 1990–2000 and beyond.
Learn more...
.svg){kind=small}
Bay Area Action’s online wish list starts off with a tongue-in-cheek request for “a million dollars, so we can create an endowment and allow the organization to live off the interest for years to come without continually worrying about financial woes (lottery tickets, anyone?).” The page goes on to list needed supplies; the agency hopes for donations of everything from garden loppers to iMacs (BAA “Wish List”). As a nonprofit organization, BAA depends on these kinds of donations — of money, goods, and services — in order to stay in operation. But, in spite of “financial woes,” something else takes priority. BAA volunteer Mark Bult explains that the agency’s members have “placed the organization’s ideology ahead of fundraising, or at least have made the latter reliant on a clear definition of the former” (interview). That decision may seem obvious or insignificant, but it actually relates to a much larger debate over corporate sponsorship and who controls environmental activism.
Bult also wrote BAA’s advertising policy, a document that clearly reflects the agency’s ideology. BAA only accepts advertising that “does not promote practices, products, services, and/or companies whose primary business practices represent a negative impact on the earth or our environment.” And the policy makes it very clear that “advertising and/or underwriting is separate from and different than affiliation, partnering, co-presentation, and/or endorsement” (BAA “Advertising/Underwriting Policy”). Most of these rules, as they relate to advertising, have very little practical application: BAA gets almost none of its income from selling ads. But corporate sponsorship can often result in something like advertising. Bult says that when a company makes “donations over a certain amount, we typically try to place their logo on our Web site.” Sponsorship of specific events works in a similar way: “companies receive increased notoriety for an increased amount” (interview).
The advantages of corporate sponsorship are obvious: the agency gets funding and supplies. BAA, for example, recently received donations of computer equipment from Hewlett-Packard. There are non-monetary advantages as well: working with local companies helps environmental agencies develop community ties. Such alliances may exert a positive influence on corporations, encouraging them to adopt environmentally friendly policies. Many environmental agencies rely heavily on corporate sponsorship; the local group Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development, for example, receives funding not just from the usual foundations and government agencies but also from Gap Inc., Bank of America, and Pacific Gas and Electric (BAASD Home Page). Larger organizations have received corporate funding as well: in one prominent 1980s case, the Environmental Defense Fund entered into a partnership with McDonald’s. Hal Dash, a McDonald’s representative, supported the relationship: “Companies need the environmental movement, and environmental groups take a lot of money from companies. What they want is access or cooperation, and why not?” (qtd. in Helvarg).
In fact, there are many reasons why not, especially when ideologies conflict. Far from accepting the sponsorship of Gap Inc., the BAA Schools Group actually organized protests at Palo Alto Gap stores last December. The protesters called for an end to human rights abuses and asked the Fisher family, which owns both Gap Inc. and the Mendocino Redwood Company, to stop clear-cutting redwoods in Sonoma and Mendocino counties (Vargas). These differing attitudes toward Gap’s business practices reflect the emerging issue of “greenwashing,” defined by the organization Corporate Watch as “the phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty” (qtd. in Klaas). Gap Inc. may support sustainable development, but is that just a way of masking environmental abuse?
According to critics like E/The Environmental Magazine’s David Helvarg, greenwashing depends upon “high profile partnerships with mainstream environmental groups” — not unlike McDonald’s partnership with the EDF. More recent culprits were awarded Corporate Watch’s Earth Day 2000 Greenwashing Awards (also known as the “Don’t be fooled” awards); they include Ford, Home Depot, Exxon, and Pacific Lumber. All presented themselves as environmentally friendly — whether through token groups like Exxon’s Tiger Protection Fund, or with advertising campaigns like Chevron’s “People do” series — while continuing to engage in environmentally destructive behavior (Wendlant). Wendy Wendlant, president of Earth Day 2000, calls them “Astroturf environmentalists — green, fake, and rootless” (qtd. in Helvarg). Environmental organizations that accept funding from these corporations become “fake and rootless” by association; their credibility is drastically reduced by the appearance of hypocrisy. Earth Day 1990 provides a good example of this phenomenon: in many places, Earth Day events were tainted by their sponsors, which included such environmental villains as biotechnology company Monsanto (Drekmeier interview). (To avoid a repeat of these problems, Earth Day 2000 actually adopted a policy of no corporate sponsorship.)
Greenwashing is not only an issue for large corporations and national environmental groups. It may be even more of a concern for smaller, more financially vulnerable nonprofits. BAA seems very aware of that concern. Its advertising policy specifically requires that ads “not constitute a recognizable attempt at greenwashing or misrepresentation of facts” (BAA “Advertising/Underwriting Policy”). Mark Bult acknowledges that BAA has had to take an ideological stand against such attempts in order to live up to its mission: “Because most environmental organizations’ objectives are in the public’s interest as a whole, not merely in the interest of a small segment (say, a given company’s shareholders), it is our responsibility to operate under a set of principles that are sometimes aligned in opposition to corporate interests” (interview).
Although BAA does sometimes seek out corporate sponsorship, it does so carefully, relying on its knowledgeable members to judge whether a given company has a clean environmental record and sincere intentions. For example, the leader of BAA’s Environmental Eating Action Team has experience and expertise in the field of vegan and macrobiotic food; when planning an event, she can be trusted to solicit sponsorship from companies that behave responsibly in those areas (Bult interview). Even when BAA does solicit donations, it makes no guarantee of publicity for the sponsoring company. Instead, any use of the company’s name or logo is what Bult calls “an acknowledgement and thank you” (interview). This perspective removes any sense that BAA owes something to the company, and reduces the chance that the organization could be taken over by corporate influence. (The fact that the majority of BAA’s funding comes from foundations, not corporations, also helps.) Perhaps most important of all, BAA simply tries to stand firm in its goals. BAA co-executive director Peter Drekmeier explains that BAA sets up its goals in a given area long before corporations get involved, and notes, “You have to be certain in your head and your heart that donations won’t affect what you want to do” (interview).
While BAA holds corporations at arm’s length through these measures, it also attempts to foster positive relationships with businesses. The Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation, an environmental group with which BAA plans to merge. sponsors the Bay Area’s annual Business Environmental Awards. The awards honor companies and organizations in categories like “Commute and Transportation,” “Pollution Prevention/Resource Conservation,” and “Sustainable Built Environments,” and past winners range from Sun Microsystems to Stanford University Transportation Programs. PCCF also works with the Business Environmental Network, an organization for businesses interested in improving environmental performance (PCCF Home Page).
BAA appears to remain independent of corporate influence. The agency is popular with grassroots activists and people who, as Mark Bult points out, know whether particular companies really live up to their claims of environmentalism (interview). At the same time, BAA maintains effective relationships with local corporations. This balance suggests that the organization’s strategy for dealing with the issues of corporate sponsorship and greenwashing is a good one. The key to cooperation between corporations and environmental groups is information. It is information that allows BAA members to evaluate potential sponsors or advertisers. Knowledge of a corporation’s business practice can help distinguish between a greenwashing attempt and a genuine desire to help the environment. It is also information that makes it possible for BAA to acknowledge businesses that do act responsibly. By addressing the issue on a case-by-case basis, an agency avoids extremes: it neither allows itself to be manipulated by greenwashing nor alienates companies that might be legitimately helpful.
Granted, the case-by-case solution still leaves plenty of room for mistakes-it is, after all, dependent on individual, fallible decisions. But that may be the point: the risk posed by corporate greenwashing is that environmental groups will lose control over their images, policies, and ability to effect real change in the world. In turning the matter over to individuals, agencies like BAA+PCCF know that they at least won’t be swept along by corporate power. In respect to corporate sponsorship, environmental groups might take as their motto the Greenwashing Awards’ nickname — “Don’t be fooled.” Living up to that motto — and fulfilling a responsibility to the public as a whole — depends on staying informed and knowledgeable.
——
——
Rebecca Freeland was working toward her BA in history at Stanford University when she wrote this paper in 2001 for Writing for Real / The Program in Writing & Rhetoric. She subsequently attended Yale Law School and today is a tax lawyer in Washington, DC.
——
Ms. Freeland gave permission in 2025 to publish this paper in the BAA Archives. The paper was originally published in Writing for Real: A Handbook for Writers in Community Service, by Carolyn Ross and Ardel Thomas, published in 2003 by Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc. Links have been added to the article in 2025.
