Non-Government Organization - Literature review Example

Non-Government Organization Name Course Name Institution’s Name Date Introduction In the latter half of the 20th Century has seen rampant establishment and operations of international and local non-government organizations, which are now critical transnational actors in making and influencing important decisions affecting the society especially concerning social, environmental, political, economical and legal issues (Betsill & Corell, 2008). According to Teegen (2003), non-governmental organizations have had a very fundamental role to play in not only making the state accountable to its citizens but also advancing sustainable development at both domestic and global level. In addition, being at the centre of inter-state negotiations in regards to issues relating to social equity, social justice, occupational health and safety and foresting global environmental conservation. NGOs are increasingly making international and local organizations accountable to their labour, human rights and ecological performance, which are compelling these organizations to ditch their Milton Friedmanite shareholder theory of value in preference of a wider and encompassing stakeholder approach. Which generates both enhanced share value and takes into account how this enhanced value is to be achieved which entails minding the welfare of the shareholders, employees , customers, interest groups and more importantly the community (IISD, 2012). These pressures from non governmental organizations has seen more and more businesses become accountable to their external environment and reporting the impact of their business activities on varied stakeholders and more significantly, putting more efforts to develop new business systems and structures that incorporate sustainable development concerns into the process of making decisions as noted by Edwards & Hulme (1995). This informs this report which seeks to discuss the concept of non-governmental organizations. In addition, comparing and contrasting the approaches taken by Greenpeace and WWF on environmental conservation and assessing which of the two have had the most influence in terms of both public opinion and government policy on environmental conservation and why. What is a non-governmental organization? Hammer (2007) suggests that as states take a back seat in various public responsibilities and regulatory functions, non-governmental organizations have taken up an active role in placing increased pressure on dominant and influential corporations that are rivalling with states for resources and influence, to pay keen attention to their social and ecological externalities of their business activities. According to Betsill & Corell (2008), non-governmental organization is a term that is routinely used to define a significant range of groups and organizations ranging from activist groups reclaiming street families to institutions focused on development initiatives and providing support and delivering basic public amenities. There are non governmental organizations that are research driven policy agencies that seeks to collaborate and negotiate with key decision makers while there are non governmental organizations that view themselves as agencies meant to keep an eye on the actions of the state and making the government accountable on current issues (Heins, 2008). Non-governmental organizations are established from both local and international fronts and there are disparities among them which range from the degree of resources they have to the level of sophistication. Teegen et al. (2004) notes that Non governmental organizations can be as large, media savvy and as influential such as Amnesty International and they can also be small and fail to register as a household name. Some of the non-governmental organizations may follow one policy objective such as availing ARV drugs to the poor urban individuals in third world countries or gender equality while others may opt to attain diverse policy objectives such as alleviating poverty or safeguarding human rights (IISD, 2012). Regardless of the nature and scope of a non-governmental organization, which distinguishes it from another, the underlying mutual characteristic of non-governmental organizations is their non-profit status, which indicates that these institutions are not slowed down or impacted by short-term monetary goals (Heins, 2008). For this reason, these institutions have the ability to dedicate themselves to matters taking long duration of time such as issues regarding climate change and achieving millennium development goals as echoed by Hammer (2007). Owing to the increased trust and confidence the society places on non-governmental organizations, these institutions are valuable system for addressing concerns of the people (Edwards & Hulme, 1995). Teegen (2003) indicates that not all non-governmental organizations are willing to engage and collaborate with the private sector and more often than not, non-governmental organizations opt to stand aside and monitor, publicize and criticize where the private sector falls short to be accountable to the effect their business activities have on the wider community as earlier mentioned. Be it as it may, there are non-governmental organizations that are not reluctant to allocate some of its resources and efforts to collaborate with the private sector in addressing the sector’s corporate social responsibilities (Betsill & Corell, 2008). Despite the fact that more often than not a non-governmental organization is thought of as a charity or as a non-profit institution, there are some of them that are profit making agencies namely cooperatives that lobby on issues that are profit oriented (IISD, 2012). For instance, the description of non-governmental organization as given by the World Trade Organization is extensive enough to accommodate industry lobby agencies and associations such as the International Chamber of Commerce. Be it as it may, non-governmental organizations are more linked to pursuing public interest than commercial interest. Heins (2008) describes a non-governmental organization as an agency that is established on the mutual interests of its members or institutions, it has no governmental role or status and it is not founded by the government and neither does its goals and memo developed or implemented by the state. The non governmental organizations play key roles ranging from and not limited to mobilizing for support to facilitate socioeconomic initiatives, creating human resources among vulnerable groups by accessing basic social amenities such as food, water, education and housing to local levels, supporting community institutions and promoting intangible gains such as cultural self efficacy (Edwards & Hulme, 1995). Moreover, non-governmental organizations are concerned with addressing critical aspects at the community levels, which include literacy, income generation, establishing financial security, and basic health care and poverty alleviation efforts as suggested by Hammer (2007). Non governmental organizations although they are the major critics of the government, they cooperate with the state to generate positive changes socially, economically, environmentally, legally and financially to improve the living standards of people and ensure every member of a community is able to access and exercise their fundamental human rights (Betsill & Corell, 2008). Among notable international non-governmental organizations includes Amnesty International, the United Nations of Human Commission of Rights, International Commission of Jurists, International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and OXFAM among others (IISD, 2012). Teegen et al. (2004) suggests that all activities by NGOs although they seek to criticize the states and occasionally complement state-provisioned programs, they usually operate in counterpoint with state actors. In case of international non-governmental organizations, they transverse national boundaries and they have developed direct and autonomous type of non-governmental diplomacy using their own networks (Edwards & Hulme, 1995). The informational, economic and intellectual capabilities, competencies and resources of these agencies have acquired them sufficient influence and know how to take up authority on issues which traditionally have been singly been within the hold of government responsibility and control (Teegen, 2003). In addition, majority of non-governmental organizations have some level of legitimacy for their goals through mere popular representation (IISD, 2012). Heins (2008) indicates that the comparative influences that non-governmental organizations have are not inert and their effects on state policies have changed and continue to change over time and place. Comparing and contrasting the approaches taken by Greenpeace and WWF as non-government organizations in addressing environmental conservation Greenpeace and WWF are two international non-governmental organizations that have been actively in environmental issues for forty years and fifty years respectively (Harvey, 2011). Both organizations have massive backing by the private sector and have generated significant support, trust and confidence from the public at a global scale although their approaches to making the stakeholders such as the commercial industry and private sector and the government accountable are significantly different and distinct as supported by Weyler (2004). WWF (2012) highlights that WWF was formerly referred to as the World Wildlife Fund but it changed its name to Worldwide Fund for Nature. The agency was established owing to the fact that some of the wild species and wild places from all over the globe were disappearing at an alarming rate, increasing the chances of these places and species being extinct. As the agency fund has grown, so has its global income, which by the year 2010 stood at more than five hundred million Euros (Harvey, 2011). The agency has multiple policy objectives ranging from climate change, conservation of mega fauna, pollution and public policies although the non governmental organization has come under intense criticism for its ‘too-laid-back’ approach and the type of people and organizations funding some of who are alleged to be high green house gases emitters by activist from other green movements (Pearce, 2009). On the other hand, Greenpeace as a non-governmental organization is reputable for its active and robust activist’s activities, which are characterized by interest-arousing and often dangerous stunts, in order to make their points known and to bring global attention to what they are concerned with (Harvey, 2011). As an international non governmental organization, Greenpeace relies on the approach of using green campaigns geared towards direct confrontation to oppose government actions or policies and using direct attack crusades in confronting firms alleged to be involved in environmental wrongdoings as discussed by Greenpeace (2012). Harvey (2011) notes that while Greenpeace opts to rely and apply confrontational and rather aggressive approach to making states and the private sector accountable to the impact their policies and business activities respectively have on the externalities particularly the community and the environment. The WWF prefers a more contrasting approach, which is characterized by the fund organization engaging with the commercial community and utilizing its global influence with business. For example, if a company is alleged to be violating environmental standards, Greenpeace will prefer holding a mass protest outside the company headquarters demonstrating while WWF will in contrast be inside the company’s boardroom with the company’s board members negotiating. WWF’s approach can be criticized since such an agency can be manipulated to green wash the environmental message sent by other green organizations using other approaches. The main vision for Greenpeace is to ensure that the earth is able to nurture life in all its diversity (Greenpeace, 2012). The main goal for the WWF is to prevent the degradation of the earth’s natural environment and to develop a future where human beings live cohesively with nature (WWF, 2012). The major similarity between the WWF and Greenpeace as non-governmental organizations is that both agencies are concerned in enhancing the common and public good, which is enhancing the natural ecology. The differences in approach in ensuring improved natural ecology for both non-government organizations can be attributed to management approaches adopted by either from the establishment of the two agencies. For Greenpeace, it was founded as a campaign movement (Weyler, 2004). The WWF was established as means to conserve where the former seeks to convince others to generate the public good while the latter seeks to engage and operate directly on generating the public good (Boyce, 2009). The varying approach adopted by Greenpeace can be traced to the type of the founding members it had who ranged from media people, scientists to activists as echoed by Weyler (2004). According to WWF (2012), WFF founding members were businesspersons, government personnel and scientists. The difference in the type of founding members influenced the aggressive approach and the consultative approach adopted by Greenpeace and WWF respectively in achieving their primary goals and objectives (Gilbert, 2008). While Greenpeace as an NGO has opted to invite people to demonstrate against states, WWF as an NGO has decided to engage and cooperate with state agencies such as the public involvement of some of the British royal family members including Prince Phillip and Prince Bernhard of Netherlands in WWF’s The 1001. WWF’s The 1001- A Nature Trust and the global debt – for –nature swap WFF initiative where global states that were indebted traded their debts for finances allocated for conservation functions (Gilbert, 2008). Both international non governmental organizations have been able to successfully achieve their set mandate, goals, vision, objectives and mission by engaging high-profile personalities and more significantly relying on the strength of the fourth estate or the media to bring attention to their particular issues and activities as discussed by Boyce (2009). For instance, WWF significantly relied on the media to bring attention to their Project Tiger meant to generate funds to build tiger reserves in varied parts of the world while Greenpeace relied on the media to air their protests demonstrating Russian whalers, which captured global attention (Gilbert, 2008). Both WWF and Greenpeace have invested their resources and energy tom varied environmental issues in a bid to ensuring a greener earth (Boyce, 2009). Greenpeace has made neither partners nor foes and accepts funds from foundation grants and from individuals (Greenpeace, 2012). WWF has relied on the use of collaborator- lobbyist strategy with state and businesses and in contrast to Greenpeace, WWF accepts funding from business corporations and from governments and licenses, the organization’s Panda trademark to organizations which comply tom particular environmental requirements and standards (WWF, 2012). WWF establishes public correlations with varied multinational companies such as Coca Cola Companies (Gilbert, 2008). Harvey (2011) highlights that regardless of the different approaches that both non-governmental organizations apply, they both develop value by enhancing the world’s willingness to pay on environmental activities and issues and they compliment each other and not substitute each other since they are more often than not, holding mutual campaigns and lobby for changes from varied stakeholders. Both organizations do not achieve value for themselves other than the credibility and goodwill that they utilize to fundraise (Gilbert, 2008). Virtually all value generated is for public good (Greenpeace, 2012). Which organizations have had the most influence in terms of both public opinion and government policy on environmental conservation? Why? Important to mention is that both Greenpeace and WWF has been for the last more than forty years and fifty years respectively have been successful in making their concerns known globally and have been effective and efficient in their efforts and activities in ensuring they make both the government and corporations are accountable to environmental conservation (Harvey, 2011). According to McCarney & Segbers (2011) Greenpeace and WWF have had significant influence of both public opinions and government policy on environmental conservation with Greenpeace adopting a more aggressive and combative approach to bringing the global attention to issues they care for and WWF adopting a collaborator-lobbyist strategy to achieve the goals and the mission of the organization. Nevertheless, WWF has had greater and much broader influence in terms of public opinion and government policy on addressing issues relating to environmental conservation. This is demonstrated by the high number of donors the non governmental organization has, the high-profile personalities it attracts, the success its projects generates, the wide public acceptance it has and more significantly the mutual relationships and engagement it receives from the private sector and businesses. These are the most contributors to environmental degradation, and therefore their involvement in environmental conservation is fundamental and crucial (WWF, 2012). WWF played a significant rule in establishing certification societies in engagement and bringing together key organizations, which includes the Marine Stewardship Council and the Forest Stewardship Council for accountable forestry and fishing (Gilbert, 2008). WFF is connected to the creation of the Climate Savers program, which has twelve organizations among them major ones such as Sony and Nike which have agreed to minimize the amount of greenhouse gases they emit by set time (WWF, 2012). The reason why WWF has more influence terms of public opinion and government policy on addressing issues relating to environmental conservation is the type of strategies and approach they use. The collaborator aspect where the organizations engage with multinationals, the government and businesses is crucial in ensuring the organization’s message is not only understood but also implemented (WWF, 2012). Since majority of those responsible for environmental degradation in terms of emission of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are businesses and the government are responsible for policy decisions and policymaking, engaging them makes more sense than adopting a confrontational approach adopted by Greenpeace. This is not to say the approach by Greenpeace is less effective and efficient only that, the approach adopted by WWF seems to bear more benefits compared to Greenpeace (Harvey, 2011). Greenpeace approach has been criticized and sued for its approach related to lost profits and damage of corporate reputation of companies and governments they protest and campaign against. Conclusion A non-governmental organization entails varied things but primarily, a non-governmental organization is an agency that is established on the mutual interests of its members or institutions, it has no governmental role or status and it is not founded by the government and neither does its goals and memo developed or implemented by the state. As highlighted in the report, non-governmental organizations vary in size, nature and scope and they can be local or international. Non-governmental organizations have gained prominence globally by taking an active role in making both the government and the private sector accountable to ensuring economic, social and political integrity. They are known to pressure businesses to be aware and keen on ensuring their business activities have minimal negative impact on their externalities more significantly the community. As indicated in the report, Greenpeace and WWF are two international non-governmental organizations concerned with environmental issues. Despite having a mutual goal and objective, the two have adopted different approaches with Greenpeace adopting a confrontation and aggressive approach to making the stakeholders accountable and WWF adopting a collaborator-lobbyist approach. The collaborator –lobbyist approach has made WWF gain more influence in terms of public opinion and government policy on addressing issues relating to environmental conservation. References Betsill, M.M., & Corell, E. (2008). Ngo Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. New York: MIT Press. Boyce, T. (2009). Climate Change and the Media. Sidney: Peter Lang. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). Non-governmental Organizations: Performance and Accountability beyond the Magic Bullet. London: Earthscan. Gilbert, S.J. (2008). The value of Environmental Activists. Harvard Business School. Accessible from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5797.html Greenpeace. (2012). Greenpeace. Greenpeace. Accessible from www.GreenPeace.org Hammer, L.M. (2007). A Foucauldian Approach to International Law: Descriptive Thoughts for Normative Issues. Sidney: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Harvey, F. (2011). Greenpeace and WWF anniversaries highlight wildly differing tactics. The Guardian. Accessible from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/14/greenpeace-wwf-anniversaries Heins, V. (2008). Nongovernmental organizations in international society: struggles over recognition. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan. IISD. (2012). the rise and role of NGOs in sustainable development. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessible from http://www.iisd.org/business/ngo/roles.aspx McCarney, P.L. & Segbers, K. (2011). Cities and Global Governance: New Sites for International Relations. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Pearce, F. (2009). Ikea- you can’t build a green reputation with a flat pack DIY manual. Guardian UK. Teegen, H. (2003). ‘International NGOs as Global Institutions: Using Social Capital to Impact Multinational Enterprises and Governments.’ Journal of International Management. Teegen, H. Doh, J., & Vachani, S., (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organisation in global governance and value creation: an international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6). Weyler, R. (2004). Greenpeace: How a Group of Journalists, Ecologists and Visionaries Changed the World. New Jersey: Rodale. WWF. (2012). World Wide Fund for Nature. WWF. Accessible from www.org Read More