Articles

Tilting at rainbows
Knightshift - Tomorrow Magazine September-October 2000

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have grown far too big for their Doc Martens. They need a jolly good hiding. This seems to be the message in speeches by some of Europe's top CEOs and repeated in well-placed articles (Wall Street Journal and Financial Times among them) penned by luminaries from right-leaning think tanks and libertarian journalists. The feeling is that NGOs are getting away with too much, making too much of a splash, causing business too much heartache. Instead of appeasement, an orchestrated campaign has started to try and kick them where it really hurts.

The argument, put forward by the more Machiavellian public relations fraternity, is that Big Business has got to stand tall and prevent those upstarts with bad haircuts getting any more powerful. There's only one group who are allowed to practice self-aggrandisement and it's not those non-governmental girls and boys who were dressing down long before it became the ultimate in corporate chic. Is this then the end of that grand idea called Partnership, the wonderful notion that NGOs and business could work together like buddies, providing common solutions to the world's social and environmental problems? Or are certain people in public relations simply making mischief to line their own pockets? Could be yes to both questions, because while it is doubtful that NGO-bashing is good for Big Business, it's certainly very good for those who charge staggering fees to help companies beat the NGOs.

This is simply because any advice to attack NGOs is plain bad counsel and should be ignored. There are two reasons for this. The first is that NGOs can be very helpful and provide a rich source of expertise. What's more, their criticism can help drive much-needed change within companies - business should, like a martial artist, use the force of the opposition boost their own momentum.

The second reason is that most NGOs, even the big ones, have a bit of an inferiority complex and like nothing better than being noticed. Large-bellied CEOs and pencil-moustachioed think-tankers (we like stereotypes here) head-butting NGOs in public arena is just the sort of gladiatorial duel that most NGOs desire. They are sado-masochistic by nature and simply love a rough and tumble - a bit of ooh, aaaah and ouch. They'll jump at the chance to occupy your oil rig, surf in your effluent pipe or muck up your website - all with CNN in close attendance. Any publicity (nearly any) is for them good publicity, especially because it takes a lot to damage the reputation of an NGO. They are perceived to be with the angels - whether they're brutalising a farmer's field or feeding the poor - and unless they've got their hands in the till, it will take a lot for the halo to slip.

So apart from the fees, why on earth should professional advisers encourage their clients to provide NGOs with the very fuel they need? Could it be poor judgement borne of the now outdated corporate belief that big guys will lose face if they give in to the great unwashed? I'm sure that's part of it. But without wanting to be overly cynical and too conspiratorial, the current round of NGO bashing does smack of a job creation scheme by old-fashioned PR consultants. It works something like this: I tell my clients to bash the NGOs. They can't wait because they find them all rather irritating. They do my bidding (I write the speech). The NGOs get more powerful and cause Big Business even more heartache. The CEOs come to me for more help. I charge them lots of money to conduct stakeholder consultation.

Mover over Machiaevelli.