Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
IR/PS CSR Case #09-01

Conservation International and theCredibility of the Purchase PowerPartnership Model

By: Lane H. Jost

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PACIFIC STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

Prepared for Professor Peter Gourevitch
Edited by Kristen Parks
Corporate Social Responsibility
Winter 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

2

Table of Contents
Introduction & Overview ................................................................................................. 3
Introduction: Conservation International’s First Corporate Partnership with the
McDonald’s Corporation ................................................................................................. 5
The Theory of the Purchase Power Partnership Approach.......................................... 8Conservation International’s Corporate Partnership Roster and Credibility
Evaluation Scorecard...................................................................................................... 10
Energy and Mining Partnerships .................................................................................. 13
Anglo American............................................................................................................. 14
BG Group Plc................................................................................................................ 16
BP Plc............................................................................................................................ 18
Chevron ......................................................................................................................... 21
ConocoPhillips .............................................................................................................. 22
Newmont Mining Corporation ...................................................................................... 23
Rio Tinto........................................................................................................................ 24
Shell............................................................................................................................... 25
Statoil ............................................................................................................................ 25
Agribusiness Partnerships ............................................................................................. 26
Bunge Limited ............................................................................................................... 27
Cargill ........................................................................................................................... 27
Monsanto....................................................................................................................... 28
Automobile Partnerships................................................................................................ 30
Ford Motor Co. ............................................................................................................. 31
Toyota............................................................................................................................ 33
Travel & Tourism ........................................................................................................... 37
Hyatt .............................................................................................................................. 38
Royal Caribbean ........................................................................................................... 39
Conclusion: The Lessons Learned................................................................................. 41
Discussion Questions....................................................................................................... 43
References........................................................................................................................ 45

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

3

Lines between these camps were once clearly drawn. Now former antagonists work together inways that are uncomfortable, uncontroversial, and yet often highly effective…In their heart ofhearts, most environmental NGO leaders would probably prefer public policy solutions toindustry partnerships. And most industry executives would probably prefer to focus on business,
not environmental work. But we live in an era of strange bedfellows.1
Glenn Prickett, Senior Vice President, Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB)
Conservation International

How do these environmentalists justify their dealings with the world’s biggest polluters? The
most common refrain: They can influence corporate leaders to change their polluting ways. The
argument sounded good tome at first. There is plenty of evidence, however, that the companies
are getting more out of the current setup than the endangered species.2
Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc.
(Journalist and former CI staffer)

Introduction & Overview
Conservation International (CI), along with its peer global environmental
nonprofit organizations The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), The Nature Conservancy(TNC) and The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), partners with a large group of
corporations from energy companies to travel and tourism firms. CI is not alone indeveloping partnerships with private industries that contribute significantly to such major
global environmental problems as climate change, deforestation and wastewaterpollution. Beginning with the McDonald’s Corporation in 1990 and continuing today, CI

12Daniel C. Esty and Andrew S. Winston, Green to Gold (New York: Wiley, 2006), p. 184.
Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc. (Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press), p. xvi.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

4

now works with over 60 corporations. This work is chartered under an initiative called
the Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB), whose mission is “Toengage the private sector worldwide in creating solutions to critical global environmental
problems in which industry plays a defining role.”1 Amongst the world’s major
environmental organizations with annual budgets greater than $200 million, there isconsiderable consensus that partnering with industry rather than lobbying against it canhave far greater mitigation impact on the environment. That is, by forging deep
relationships with the corporate world and leveraging its enormous purchase power, theenvironment stands to gain on a scale far greater than traditional pressure approaches. But
how do we know this and how can the evidence be verified? Is CI a legitimate verifier, or
is monitoring too literal a framework to use?
Critics led by more activist environmental stakeholders such as Greenpeace, theSierra Club and the media, say the environmental movement is broken and has been coopted by the corporate world. Books like Green, Inc. written by a former CI staffer,accuse the major environmental organizations of selling out to their corporate
stakeholders by accepting tax-deductible donations in return for custom-designed green
marketing (or green-washing) patinas. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports are
becoming increasingly voluminous and sophisticated with a clear emphasis onenvironmental sustainability. The vast majority of CI’s corporate partners publish suchreports promoting their green initiatives. And other corporations throughout the world
have embraced the value proposition of a green image with rising oil prices andexpanding global consensus on anthropogenic climate change. However, those critics thatcry foul, while certainly not in the mainstream of today’s environmental movement, mayCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

5

have a case to make. Indeed, beyond websites, press releases and other marketingcollateral such as CSR reports, nonprofits like CI offer a dearth of transparent
information to support the efficacy of the purchase power partnership model. Beyond thelack of data supporting partnership outcomes, CI opens itself up to conflict of interest
claims when members of its Board represent companies that are listed under the CELB.
Clearly, questions surrounding the credibility and productivity of the partnerships arevalid.
So, who is right and is it that simple? Are CI’s corporate partnerships zero-sum
green-washing propositions, or might they deliver legitimate environmental gains along
the margins of supply chain management where skeptical stakeholders are not looking?
This paper examines the debate by analyzing the marketing collateral and other public
disclosure documents from a sample of CI’s most controversial corporate partnerships
from the following sectors: 1) energy and mining; 2) agribusiness; 3) automobile; and 4)
travel and tourism. Clearly, if there was evidence that CI’s work with the corporate
sector reduced environmental impact and helped the bottom line, there would be an
unequivocal incentive for both CI and its partner to transparently report the outcome. So,
what are they reporting?

Introduction: Conservation International’s First Corporate Partnership with the
McDonald’s Corporation
Beginning in 1990, the iconic fast food franchise empire McDonald’s Corporationentered into a partnership with the Washington, D.C. area-based environmental nonprofit

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

6organization, CI. The relationship marked the first time CI had entered into an agreementwith a corporate partner. Initially, the two parties collaborated on raising conservation
awareness through a series of educational marketing campaigns aimed at the preservationof the world’s rainforests. The partnership then advanced to an analysis of thesustainability of the corporation’s whitefish fish supply chain. McDonald’s had become
increasingly concerned about the future of global whitefish stocks and turned to CI, ainstitution dedicated the preservation of biodiversity, for help in finding sustainable
whitefish sources for its Filet-O-Fish sandwich.
CI’s objective was to collaborate with the world’s largest food-service provider inorder to leverage McDonald’s considerable international purchase power to preserve
global biodiversity. In 2005, McDonald’s spent nearly $18 billion on food and paper
products.3 CI’s strategy with McDonald’s is predicated on scale: $18 billion is asufficient level of purchasing power to change business practices in great volume. Rather
than taking the traditional pressure approach in order to induce McDonald’s into reducing
its adverse environmental impacts, CI favors a more integrated, multi-stakeholder
approach to address the global challenges McDonald’s businesses presented. For if
McDonald’s decided to insist upon certain environmental standards from supplies, thesuppliers would have to either comply, or risk losing a chunk of McDonald’s $18 billion
business.
At the genesis of the partnership, the notion of an environmental group partneringwith a Fortune 500 company (McDonald’s is currently ranked number 106 with 2007

3

McDonald’s 2005 Financial Statement

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

7

revenues of $23.2 billion4) was uncommon and CI faced early criticism from thenonprofit community. In 1989, McDonald’s was under heavy scrutiny by activist
environmental groups led by Greenpeace for allegedly sourcing beef from fragile
rainforest areas in South America. A large constituency in the environmental movement
at the time considered McDonald’s to be an insouciant instigator of habitat loss in its
pursuit of profits. For CI, an organization dedicated to the conservation of biodiversity
hotspots—many of which are rainforests—partnering with McDonald’s was anunorthodox move without definitive project metrics.
However, CI’s partnership with McDonald’s proved to seminal, as theorganization rapidly increased its work with the private sector by creating The Center for
Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB), as well as the Business and Biodiversity
Council, a cohort group of its Board of Directors that united stakeholders from businessand conservation biology. Indeed, the purchase power partnership model is a significant
instrument CI employs to pursue its mission.
It is important to establish from the outset that CI does not claim to be a monitor
or verifier of its partners’ overall operations, but rather an independent, project-based
consulting entity. Corporations do not pay a fees for the consulting services provided by
CI, though there are certainly corporate and foundation donations to CI’s annual revenues
that will be discussed later. The lines between the nonprofit and private sectors havecertainly blurred since 1990, with the CELB being a significant example of this. CI
currently lists over 60 partnerships with corporations in its CELB program. The

4

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/101_200.html -- December 3, 2008

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

8

companies range all the way from oil and gas behemoths like Shell and BP to retailers
like Wal-Mart. Before delving into a case by case look at the partnerships, let us establish
the framework of the purchase power partnership model and its rationale.

The Theory of the Purchase Power Partnership Approach
While there is no one definitive methodological basis for CI’s purchase power
partnership strategy, the model can be articulated under the Triple Bottom Line5 agenda:
the simultaneous pursuit of social, environmental and financial returns. With its partners
in the CELB, CI intends to serve as catalyst for more effective corporate environmental
strategy. An effective way to frame the purchase power model is to establish a baseline ofenvironmental outcomes and their corresponding metrics as in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Environmental Metrics6
Environmental Outcome

Basic Metrics

Energy-Energy used
-Renewable Energy

Water-Total water used
-Water Pollution

Air-Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)-Releases of heavy metals and toxic
chemicals

56Andrew Savitz and Karl Weber, The Triple Bottom Line (New York City: Jossey-Bass, 2006).
Esty and Winston, 2006, p. 174.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

9-Emissions of particulates
Waste-Hazardous waste-Solid waste-Recycled materials

Compliance-Notices of violations-Fines or penalties paid

In the absence of standardized federal disclosure regulations on these metrics acrossindustries, there is an obvious role to play for a nonprofit environmental actor such as CI
with its expertise in natural resource conservation and sustainable development
management. Standardization is not necessarily the goal of CI’s work with its corporate
partners, but rather progress on the mitigation of environmental metrics most relevant to
the respective industry. If CI can convince McDonald’s for instance to purchase a certain
percentage of whitefish from more sustainable sources—perhaps ones that require lessembedded carbon and produce less by-catch—the theory holds that influence over thatpurchasing decision has the ability to have a significant positive impact on theenvironment. Moreover, it is the top-down supply chain decisions that can provide themost environmental and financial value to the natural world and to the shareholder.
Assuming this sort of impact can be verified or at least reported, there seems to be
little economic argument against the purchase power partnership mode. It employs
leverage, economies of scale and thus, should deliver efficiency. And yet, it is theverification that has lagged well behind the partnerships themselves, which is howCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

10

allegations of green-washing enter. CI bears all the reputational costs of its work with thecorporate sector. This piece will focus on CI’s role in the partnership because it is the
NGO whose mission is to preserve biodiversity and not the industry partner. Whilepartners may deploy glossy marketing collateral that tout their green aspirations, for the
purpose of this analysis, let’s assume their chief concern is preserving equity shareholder
value and not, environmental stakeholder value.

Conservation International’s Corporate Partnership Roster and Credibility
Evaluation Scorecard
As previously mentioned, CI’s partnerships in the CELB are vast spanning bothprivate and public corporations. In order to evaluate their legitimacy based on the publicmaterials provided by CI, I will employ the simple ordinal scorecard found in table 3,
which combines elements of the key environmental metrics found in table 1.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

11

Table 2: Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB) Roster, January
20097
Corporatio
3nAbercrombie
&
M
Alco
Kent
Anglo
a
Anheuser‐BuschAmericanAveda
Companies
BG
Group
Corporation
BP
plc
Bank
plc of
BHP
America
Boise
Billiton
Bunge
CascadeCargilLimited
CEMEl
Chevron/Texac
X
CitigrouoCoach,
p
Coca‐Cola
Inc.
ConcurTechnologies,
Company
ConocoPhillip
Inc.
Dell,
Inc.
s
Fiji Water Company
Ford
LLC Motor
Gap,
Company
GITI
Inc. Tire
GFA
Terra
Corporation
Green
Square,Systems
Hyat
Inc.
Intel
t
International
Corporation
Kraft
PaperFoods,
LimitedInc.
Brands

Secto
TechnologrTourisy
Aluminum
Energyandm
Beverag
Mining
Beaut
e
Energ
y
Energ
y
FinancyDevelopmente
Timbe
Products
Agribusinesr
Agribusiness
Buildings
Energ
Supplies
FinancyFashion&e
Beverag
ApparelTechnologeEnergyComputery
Beverag
HardwareAutomotiveFashio
e
Auto
n
IT
Tires
IT
Consulting
HotelsandConsulting
IHospitality
Paper
and
T
Foo
Packaging
FashiodnCorporatio
MatternMarichGroup
Marriot
Confectionary
McDonald's
Hotels
MeadWestvac
Corporation
MitsubishoMonsanti
NativeoNewmont
MiningEnergyOfficeDepot,
Corporation
OracleInc.
Organic
Corporation
Peter
Gillham's Natural
Bouquet
Punta
VitalityCana Resort and
Rio
Club
Royal
Tinto
Save
Your
Caribbean
SC
World
Seeds
of
Johnson
Shel
ChangeStarbuckl
Statois
StonyfiellSustainable
Forestd
Toyot
Management
Uniteda
UnitedAirlinesTechnologies
Wal‐
Corporation
Walt‐DisneyMart
WeyerhauseCompanyr

SectoMarketinr
Candyg
HotelsandWholesaleFoo
Hospitality
Paper
and
d
Automobil
Packaging
Agribusinese
CarbonOffsets
MininMarketRetailOfficeg
ISupplies
Organic
T
Vitamin
Flowers
Hote
s
Minin
l
Tourisg
Beautym
Cleaning
Products
Agricultur
Products
Energ
e
Coffe
y
Energ
e
Foo
y
Forestrd
AutomotivyAirlineTechnologeRetaiyEntertainmenlForestrtyTable 3: Partnership Scorecard
CI Partnership Analysis Scorecard
1
2
3
4
5

7

Green‐washing with direct financial benefit to CI
Green‐washing with no financial benefit to CI
Some specious evidence of environmental mitigation deliverables with financial benefit toCI
Some evidence of concrete environmental mitigation deliverables and targets; no financial
support to CI
Ample evidence of concrete environmental mitigation deliverables and targets; no financial
support of CI

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/-- January 10, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

12

As well as the following relevant questions when applicable from Dr. Peter Gourevitch’s
NGO monitoring framework:
Table 4: NGO Credibility Monitoring Framework8•

Governance: What role does the target of the monitoring play in theorganization? Are they members of the board? Funders?

•

Money: How does the organization pay its bills? How might this affect its
credibility? Is the money connected to the target of monitoring?

•Transparency: How transparent is the organization on:‐ money source‐ its board‐ its activities‐ its criteria for success/ failure‐ its findings: Is it transparent with faultfinding?
‐ if not transparent , why?

8•

Costs of being wrong: Who pays the costs for deviating from thestandard being monitored? The target, the monitor, or the consumer?

•

Competition: Does the organization have competitors? How can weevaluate which is more “credible?” Is one of them the “green-washer?”
How could you tell? Does competition drive standards up or down?

•Competence: What is the skill level required in this organization tobe effective? How does pay for it?

•

Shadow of the state: How much does the NGO rely on state rules for
information or indirect enforcement?

Peter Gourevitch, 2009.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

13

And while relying on marketing collateral to produce a quantitative and qualitative
credibility index is crude and imperfect, absent more rigorous disclosures, public
information is fair game. In an effort to be as balanced as possible in light of incomplete
information, previous environmental misdeeds of the corporations prior to partneringwith CI will not be factored into the scores. The sample includes 15 corporations fromindustries with some of the greatest environmental footprints: 1) energy and mining; 2)agribusiness; 3) automobile; and 4) travel and tourism.

Energy and Mining Partnerships
PartnerIndustry

2007 Revenue

Key Environmental
Impacts

Anglo American

Mining$2.26 billion9

Site contamination

BG Group Plc

Oil & Gas

$2.5 billion10

Carbon emissions

BP PlcOil & Gas

$239 billion11

Carbon emissions

ChevronOil & Gas

$200 billion12

Carbon emissions

ConocoPhillips

Oil & Gas

$172 billion13

Carbon emissions

Newmont Corp.

Mining$5.5 billion14

Site contamination

Rio Tinto

Mining$33 billion15

Site contamination9

http://www.angloamerican.co.uk/aa/media/releases/2009pr/2009-02-20/ -- February 28, 2009http://www.londonstockexchange.com/engb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?ti=BG. –February 28, 20091011

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?symbol=BP.L – March 1,
200912

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/385.html -- March 1, 2009
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
13

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Shell

Oil & Gas

$318 billion16

Carbon emissions

StatoilOil & Gas

$66 billion17

Carbon emissions

TOTALS

14$1038.21 billion of annual purchase power

Partner

Credibility Score (15)Conservation mechanism(s)Anglo American4

Conservation easement support

BG Group Plc

1

Photography

BP Plc3Conservation easements; member EBI

Chevron3

Member EBI

ConocoPhillips

2Best practices for oil and gas development

Newmont Corp.

1

Best practices for mining in Hotspots

Rio Tinto1

Best practices for mining in Hotspots

Shell

3

Member EBI

Statoil

3.5

Member EBI

MEAN

2.38/5 = CI’s energy and mining partnerships lack credibility

Anglo American
CI Statement18
Challenge
South Africa's Succulent Karoo boasts the richest variety of succulent plants inthe world, with nearly one-third of its floral species found nowhere else on Earth.

16

Ibid.
Ibid.
18
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/energy-mining/anglo-american.xml -- March 1, 200917

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

15

In addition to its floral diversity, this region is a center of diversity for reptiles andmany groups of invertebrates. Unfortunately, the Succulent Karoo is under
extreme pressure from human impacts, especially overgrazing, mining, illegal
collection of fauna and flora, and climate change.
Solution
In September 2001, CI and its South African partners initiated a regional
systematic conservation planning process in the Succulent Karoo hotspot, with thecreation of the Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Planning (SKEP) process, which was
funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. From the beginning, theplanning process involved Anglo Base Metals, a division of Anglo American that
operates in the area, as well as several other regional and local stakeholders.
Within this process, we have been providing technical and financial support since
early 2003 to a local partner, the Botanical Society of South Africa, to support
development of the Bushmanland Conservation Initiative (BCI). Bushmanland, an
area of about 338,000 hectares, was one of nine areas identified as being of highbiodiversity value and a priority for conservation.
Through the BCI, Anglo American and other stakeholders are working toestablish a 60,000 hectare protected area and pilot local economic development
activities. Anglo American has also committed to continuing to work with the
BCI to develop mining best practice guidelines for biodiversity management at its
Black Mountain mine and Gamsberg exploration project.
Analysis and Score: 4

CI reports that it engaged with Anglo American’s partner Anglo Base Metals
because the firm operates in the Karoo region of South Africa, where an abundance ofdiverse succulent plants flourish. In addition to the floral environment, Karoo is also
known for its rich habitat for reptiles and invertebrates. The impacts of mining poseserious threats to these biologically diverse areas. To mitigate the threats to these richnatural areas, CI has provided “technical and financial support since early 2003” to a
local NGO, which works on the Bushmanland Conservation Initiative, a 338,000-hectareCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

16

preserve. CI also reports that it has plans to establish a 60,000-hectare protected area.
Finally, the partnership is working to develop “best practice guidelines for biodiversity
management” at the Black Mountain mine.
Neither “technical,” “financial,” or “best practice” projects are defined in thereport. However, there is no evidence of Anglo American donating money to CI since thepartnership began in 2001 nor does CI’s Board contain any representatives from thecompany. 338,000 hectares of protected land is a clear conservation outcome of thepartnership.

BG Group Plc
CI Statement19
BG Group
BG Group, a global natural gas company, and Conservation International joined
forces in 2006 to convey the message of conservation through the power ofphotography. Their Conservation through Photography Alliance focuses on
creating unique opportunities to capture, store, and share conservation photos.
The alliance was formed in recognition of the importance of photography to
document conservation actions, challenges, and successes, especially for people
who have never traveled to a tropical forest, coral reef, or wetland. Images are a
powerful tool for building pride among local communities of their natural
heritage, motivating the general public to change their consumption habits, andinfluencing international leaders to take action to support conservation andsustainable development.
“Through the leadership of BG Group, the alliance will advance conservation of
our natural world,” says Russell Mittermeier, president of CI. “This partnershipwill allow those that do not have the opportunity to travel to these beautiful yet
threatened places the opportunity to see why it is so important that we protect our

19

http://web.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/partners/corporate/bggroup.xml -- March 4, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

17

planet’s biodiversity. Nothing does more to inspire people to protect and conserve
like a vivid photo image.”“As an organization that works closely with the Earth’s natural resources, we arecommitted to making a positive contribution to the protection of theenvironment," says BG Group Executive Vice President Charles Bland. "Ourpartnership with Conservation International will provide funding to research anddocument biodiversity hotspots, using the power of photography to raiseawareness of the beauty, diversity, and fragility of the natural world, and to serve
as a reminder of the importance of preserving this precious heritage for future
generations.”
Alliance is Off to Strong Start
The three-year collaboration involves training workshops for field staff,
expeditions to remote areas, and exhibits of resulting photography. Purchasing
photo equipment, building CI’s image library, and documenting relatively
unknown plants, animals, and communities are also part of the alliance's strategy.
CI has already completed one training workshop and two expeditions, and will
host its first photo exhibition, entitled "A Future for Life," in downtown Houston.
The exhibit – which will be on display at One and Two Allen Center, 500 Dallas
Avenue, May 16-June 30 – includes more than 60 images that take viewers fromthe spectacular wildlife of the Pantanal wetland in Brazil to the depths of the coral
reefs of the Raja Ampat archipelago in Indonesia.
Support from BG Group has already enabled CI to conduct photographic training
workshops and expeditions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Almost
immediately after the creation of the alliance, CI set out to document the Raja
Ampat Islands of West Papua, Indonesia – home of one of the most pristine coral
reefs ecosystems in the world.
Just months later, CI photographers were deployed to Central Africa – theDemocratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda – to capture gorillas on film, as
well as aerial photos of forest cover across the Maiko-Tayna-Kahuzi-Biega
landscape and the Tayna Gorilla Reserve.
At the same time, CI and its partners got together in the Brazilian Pantanal for a
photography training session. Armed with equipment purchased with support
from BG Group, these conservationists learned how to take the best photos offlora and fauna and how to document their photos properly so they can be added
to CI's growing image library for future use.
Analysis and Score: 1

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

18

The proliferation of photography that captures the sanctity of fragile naturallandscapes can certainly yield gains on behalf of the marketing of global conservation
ethics. However, nowhere in this statement can one feel confident that a photographic
education partnership between CI and a major oil and gas company is nothing more thana patina of environmental good. BG is a financial supporter of CI and clearly receives animage boost by supporting photography exhibitions with conservation themes. CI
employs skilled photographers in-house and does not rely on the core competency of BG
to deliver persuasive photography to support its mission. While it may be true that BG isa responsible corporation that is rigorously pursuing more sustainable oil and gas
production practices, nothing in this statement can prove any tangible environmental
mitigation.
BP PlcCI Statement20
Our partnership with BP is focused on best practices for oil and gas development,
climate change issues and overall support of CI's biodiversity conservation
efforts.

20•

BP is a member of the Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, which is convened by
CELB to promote best practices for integrating biodiversity conservation into
upstream oil and gas development.

•

The BP Indonesia business unit supports the Papua Conservation Fund, which
was initiated by CI Indonesia and WWF-Sahul programs. The Papua
Conservation Fund will enable CI's conservation work at the Papua provincial
level through capacity development of local non-governmental organizations.

•

BP is a member of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, a groupof companies and non-governmental organizations committed to developing

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/bp.xml -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

19

tools to combat climate change, while contributing to biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development.
•

The Conservation Leadership Programme (formerly the BP Conservation
Programme) is a partnership of five organizations including BP, Conservation
International, Birdlife International, Fauna & Flora International and the
Wildlife Conservation Society. Together they are developing the potential of
future biodiversity conservation leaders through awards, training and ongoingsupport.

EBI Report Summary
Challenge
The juxtaposition of energy needs and biodiversity values has led tochallenges for both the energy industry and the conservation community. Forenergy companies, the challenge is to find a way to meet the public demandfor oil and gas products, while at the same time addressing society's
expectations for corporate social and environmental responsibility. For
environmental organizations, the challenge is to be a strong voice forbiodiversity conservation while working with industry to find the balance
between the potential threat that oil and gas development represents and theopportunities for harnessing the influence, expertise and resources of energy
companies for conservation efforts.
Solution
The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI), convened by CELB, brings
together leading energy companies and conservation organizations to develop
and promote a framework of best practices for integrating biodiversity
conservation into upstream oil and gas development. The partners havecreated a set of practical guidelines and tools to minimize impacts tobiodiversity and maximize contributions to conservation wherever oil and gas
resources are developed. The guidelines address all stages of the project
lifecycle—from pre-bid to decommissioning—and are designed to be
integrated into existing company management systems.
Progress
Completed Report and Products: In August of 2003, the EBI member
organizations published a main report Integrating Biodiversity Conservation
into Oil and Gas Development along with accompanying products that containrecommendations and tools for practical steps to integrate biodiversity
protection into the entire lifecycle of oil and gas operations. The process ofcreating these products included consultation with key stakeholders from

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

20

industry, academia and the environmental community. After the launch of the
EBI report21 , EBI members set out to apply and test the recommendations andguidelines—along with promoting the ideas and practices into EBI products.
In 2005, a progress report was completed: “EBI Report on Progress,” which
outlines how the EBI recommendations have been applied, tested, andpromoted by EBI members and other companies within the energy sector.
Also in 2005, the EBI report was translated into three other languages Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Disseminated Report and Products: The report and products have been
disseminated directly to the employees of the partner companies as well as toother individuals in the industry through direct mailings and the Biodiversity
Working Group, jointly established by the International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association and the International Association of
Oil and Gas Producers, two major industry trade associations. The EBI reportand products also were disseminated directly to a variety of non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and other interested parties through direct mailings andat public presentations at key conservation and industry forums. In addition,
the main EBI report was translated and made available in Spanish, French andPortuguese, so that it may reach an even wider audience.

Committing to Next Steps: The industry members of the EBI havecommitted to continue to work toward integrating the EBI guidelines into
their individual organizations, and the NGO members have committed tocontinue to promote the guidelines and challenge oil and gas companies tomeet their responsibilities in regard to biodiversity conservation.

Analysis and Score: 3
BP is one of CI’s energy partners that is a member of the organization’s Energy andBiodiversity Initiative (EBI). The EBI’s mission is to recommend best practices for oil
and gas development that align with CI’s mission of protecting biodiversity around the21

http://www.celb.org/ImageCache/CELB/content/energy_2dmining/ebi_2epdf/v1/ebi.pdf -- March 4,
2009Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

21

world. The 65-page EBI report22 is indeed a comprehensive tome that carefully outlines
how oil and gas exploration can tread less lightly on the environment and still be a
productive business model. Quotes from CI executives are interspersed throughout more
technical sections making the case for why energy companies must maintain respectablepublic profiles. And while there’s ample evidence that the report has been put together
for the purpose of guiding future industry practices, there is very little hard detail beyond
rosy anecdotes that can confirm buy-in from across CI’s energy partners. Nonetheless,there do seem to be concrete steps being taken. But since BP is a financial supporter of
CI, this partnership receives a middle score on the credibility index.

ChevronCI Statement23

CELB's partnership with Chevron is focused on best practices for oil and gas
development and providing overall support of biodiversity conservation.
•

Chevron is a member of the Energy & Biodiversity Initiative (EBI), convened by
CELB to promote best practices for integrating biodiversity conservation into
upstream oil and gas development.

•

Chevron was a sponsor of the conference "Making Biodiversity Work for yourTravel Business: Increasing Profitability while Protecting the Environment" heldin the Dominican Republic in April 2003.

Analysis and Score: 3

22
23

Ibid.
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/chevron_texaco.xml -- March 3, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

22

Chevron, like BP, is a member of CI’s Energy and Biodiversity Council. However,beyond being a part of that initiative and being a contributor to CI, there’s very little else
one can learn about the partnership from the materials CI makes available.

ConocoPhillips
CI Statement24•

Our partnership with ConocoPhillips, as operator for its partners Eni Venezuela
and OPIC, is focused on protecting critical ecosystems in Venezuela's Gulf ofParia through sustainable fishing and best practices in oil and gas development.

•

ConocoPhillips and Conservation International are working with local
stakeholders to assess the biodiversity values of the region and design andimplement measures that promote conservation through improved resource
management from local communities.

•

Partnership activities include an assessment of marine habitats near
ConocoPhillips' concession area and a threats and opportunities assessment in theregion, which were used to develop part of ConocoPhillips' Environmental Impact
Assessment.

Analysis and Score: 2

ConocoPhillips is not party to CI’s Energy and Biodiversity Council raising
immediate questions as why CI would work with an energy company that does not buy-in
to its most significant energy initiative. CI reports that the partnerships includes “bestpractices for oil and gas development,” as well as work protecting sustainable fishing in
Venezuela’s Gulf of Paria, a critical ecosystem. This is a similar refrain from CI’s
website: aspirations and initiatives that sound interesting and productive, but with no24

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/conocophillips.xml -- March 3, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

23

reported outcomes. ConocoPhillips did not support CI financially in 2007, so thepartnership scores poorly, but one level below absolute green-washing.

Newmont Mining Corporation
CI Statement25

Our partnership with Newmont Mining Corporation is focused on building biodiversity
considerations into the company’s environmental management systems and supporting
biodiversity conservation in priority landscapes in CI’s Hotspots and wilderness areas.
•

CI is working with Newmont to review their corporate environmental policies,
operating standards and management systems to integrate biodiversity
conservation into their decision making processes, and into the design andmanagement of their projects worldwide.

•

Newmont Ghana Gold Ltd. (a subsidiary of Newmont Mining Corp.) is working
with CI Ghana and local partners to ensure biodiversity issues and conservation
opportunities are evaluated and managed at their Akyem and Ahafo project sites.

Analysis and Score: 1

While we can take comfort in knowing that Newmont is “building biodiversity
considerations” into its environmental management practices in CI priority landscapes,
Hotspots and wilderness areas, CI reports no deliverables beyond aspirations. Newmont
is a financial contributor of CI that gives this partnership the lowest possible score.

25

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/newmont.xml -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

24

Rio Tinto
CI Statement26

Our partnership with Rio Tinto Mining and Exploration Limited, a group within Rio
Tinto, is focused on integrating biodiversity considerations in their mining operations.
•

CI and Rio Tinto signed a relationship agreement in 2007 to cover our global
level work on integrating biodiversity considerations into the company’senvironmental management systems, including integration of the Initial
Biodiversity Assessment and Planning (IBAP) approach. IBAP is a methodology
pioneered by CI and our corporate partners to assist companies in incorporating
biodiversity in their risk analysis and decision-making and planning processes for
new development projects.

•

Rio Tinto and CI are working together in a number of places around the world,
including Guinea, Brazil and Madagascar.

Analysis and Score: 1

Just as seen with the Newmont partnership, CI’s work with Rio Tinto purports tointegrate biodiversity concerns into the company’s operations. Rio Tinto is employing anenvironmental impact assessment approach to guide its risk-analysis and decision-making
when considering new extraction projects. This is another case that sounds good: who
would argue that mining should not consider environmental impacts before extraction
begins? However, CI cannot report any outcomes that have actually improved Rio
Tinto’s business and mitigated against environmental harm. And as a financial
contributor to CI, this partnership looks suspect.

26

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/riotinto.xml -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

25

Shell
CI Statement27

Our partnership with Shell is focused on best practices for oil and gas
development.
•

Shell is a member of the Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, convened by
CELB. The initiative promotes best practices for integrating biodiversity
conservation into upstream oil and gas development

Analysis and Score: 3

Shell is party to the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, so there is some evidence thecompany has taken steps to begin considering more sustainable exploration practices withnew projects. However, CI reports no further deliverables for Shell beyond its
participation in the EBI. And since Shell contributes to CI, it receives a middle score.

Statoil
CI Statement28

Our partnership with Statoil is focused on best practices for oil and gas
development.
•

27
28

Statoil is a member of the Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, convened by
CELB. The initiative promotes best practices for integrating biodiversity
conservation into upstream oil and gas development.

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/shell.xml -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/statoil.xml -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

26

Analysis and Score: 3.5

Statoil is also a member of the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative with CI. But justas in the case of Shell, there is no evidence that can verify the company has begun
implementing these practices into its operations. Since Statoil does not contribute to CI
however, the partnership receives a 3.5.

Agribusiness Partnerships
Partner

2007 Revenue

Primary Environmental Impacts

Bunge Limited$37.8 billion29

Carbon emissions; water use; deforestation

Cargill$88.3 billion30

Carbon emissions; water use; deforestation

Monsanto$8.61 billion31

Water use; major producer of genetically modified
seed

TOTAL

$134.71 billion of annual purchase power

Partner

Credibility Score (15)Conservation mechanism(s)Bunge Limited

3

Brazilian farmer environmental
compliance

Cargill3

Business & Biodiversity integration

Monsanto

3.5

Sustainable supply chain29

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/58/58878.html -- March 2, 200930

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0805/gallery.private_companies.fortune/2.html -- March 2,
2009
31

Ibid.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
MEAN
credible27

3.16/5 = CI’s work with the agribusiness sector is somewhat

Bunge Limited
CI Statement32
Bunge and CI work together on a pilot project in two corridors in thesouthwestern and northern regions of the Cerrado to help soy farmers comply
with the Brazilian Forest Code by protecting riparian and slope areas and setting
aside private reserves on their properties, and to integrate conservation criteria
into Bunge's supply chain management.
Analysis and Score: 3

CI does not make any grand statements on its relationship with Brazilian
agribusiness giant Bunge Limited, which does in some sense give the partnership limited
credibility. And by calling its projects “pilot” we can gain some vague sense that thepartnership is still finding its footing. Nonetheless, Bunge is a financial contributor to CI
and absent much further information, it receives a middle score.

Cargill
CI Statement33

Our partnership with Cargill, Inc. is focused on integrating biodiversity
considerations into their business activities.
•

32
33

Cargill and Conservation International (CI) teamed up in 2006 for a 2-year
partnership to create benefits for both business and biodiversity in regions where
Cargill operates. With Cargill’s support of $1.5 million, CI and Cargill are

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/bunge.xml -- March 3, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/cargill.xml -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

28

working together to build information tools and processes that will help Cargill toidentify environmental risks and opportunities associated with business activities.
The partnership is also exploring trends in natural resources management that
may offer future benefits for the company, environment, and local communities.

Analysis and Score: 3

In a rare disclosure, CI reports that Cargill contributed $1.5 million for its
partnership with the NGO. This is an anomaly across most of the other partnerships
included in this sample, as normally CI makes no such transparent statement about
partner financial support. The programmatic elements of the partnership focuses ondeveloping a framework for Cargill to identify the environmental risks in its business
operations. This is a rather vague statement, but CI earns some points for transparency.

Monsanto
CI Statement:

Conservation International and Monsanto established this partnership because bothorganizations believe that by working together, they will encourage positive changes
for biodiversity and natural habitats by:••

Influencing the implementation of best practices along the supply chain of
Monsanto, a leading agribusiness company which is directly in contact with
farmers in the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado of Brazil and
Implement concrete conservation actions in 2 biodiversity corridors in the
Cerrado and Atlantic Forest biomes.

Objective of the partnership: The general objective of the partnership is conserve
biodiversity in two biodiversity corridors, one in the Atlantic Forest (Northeast
Corridor) and other in Cerrado (Jalapão/Western Bahia Corridor)

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

29

The project has three specific objectives:(a) preventing illegal deforestation;(b) preventing the local extinction of species;(c) encouraging compliance with legislation in the agriculture and livestock
supply chain.
Additional aspect of the partnership:
Aside from the three objectives, CI and Monsanto will work together to develop
strategies, internal rules and procedures to achieve the operational alignment of
the company with the three specific objectives mentioned above. This element is
key to the success of the partnership, as both the support and collaboration of
Monsanto in activities developed by CI, and the incorporation of these principles
in the company’s operational routine are imperative.
Why work in the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado?
They are, therefore, priority areas for conservation actions that also coincide with
regions where Monsanto operates, and where agribusiness has a significant
impact on the environmental.
Scope of the partnership:
As part of the collaboration, CI will advise and recommend ways Monsanto can
improve its environmental practices in relation to protecting the region. In turn,Monsanto adopt the conservation of biodiversity in the Cerrado and the Atlantic
Forest as one of the key elements of its business strategies in the region. The
partnership states that both institutions will carry out activities that will produce
concrete and measurable results to guarantee the conservation of biodiversity inareas selected as critical to both partners.
Investment:
The total value of the project is US$ 13 million, to be invested over five years.
Costs will be equally shared between CI and Monsanto.

Analysis and Score: 3.5

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

30

Just like the Cargill case, CI is providing clear information on how Monsanto is
supporting the partnership financially--$6.5 million over two years. Since CI is sharing
the cost with Monsanto, there definitely seems to be more evidence at least from afinancial perspective, that this is an equal partnership. The report lays out in clear
language what the desired project objectives, deliverables and outcomes are. While there
is no evidence that the partnership has achieved its three objectives—prevention of illegal
deforestation, prevention of extinction of local species and farmer compliance ofenvironmental law—the goals are clear. This example seems suggest the possibility of
productive mitigation outcomes, and will be interesting to keep an eye on.

Automobile Partnerships

Partner

2007 Revenue

Ford Motor Co.

$173.9 billion34

Carbon emissions

Toyota$202.2 billion35

Carbon emissions

TOTAL

Key Environmental Impacts$376.1 billion of annual purchase power

Partner

Credibility Score (15)Conservation mechanism(s)Ford Motor Co.

2

Biodiversity conservation

Toyota4Land protection support in the Philippines

34

http://jalopnik.com/348979/2007-a-good-year-for-ford-company-only-loses-27-billion -- March 2, 200935

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/41/41889.html -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

31

Ford Motor Co.
CI Statement36

Our Partnership with Ford Motor Company is focused on supporting CI's
biodiversity conservation efforts.
•

The Ford Motor Company is a member of CI's Business and Biodiversity Council,
a community of companies committed to leveraging their business experience andresources to conserve biodiversity.

Business and Biodiversity Council37
MissionA community of business leaders committed to taking positive environmental actionsin their businesses that contribute to the conservation of biodiversity.
Opportunity
There is a growing recognition within the private sector of the importance of
biodiversity and its relevance to business. Enlightened corporate leaders are driving
change within their industries and embracing the principles of sustainability. Yet, few
opportunities exist for interaction with like-minded leaders from different sectors of
the business community.
Convened by Conservation International (CI), the Business & Biodiversity Council isan action-oriented forum for corporate leaders to work with each other in finding
ways to institute pro-environmental practices.

36
37

•

Member-centric: Council members drive the meetings so that they willaddress pressing member issues and develop innovative and executable
solutions.

•

Solving Real Problems: Discussions are targeted at answering thosequestions facing companies on a regular basis including integrating

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/ford_motor_company.xml -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/strategies/business_biodiversity.xml -- March 5, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

32

biodiversity into the supply chain, low impact extraction techniques andengaging consumers on distinguishing environmentally friendly brands.
•

Diversity of Perspectives: From CEO’s to senior vice-presidents andenvironmental managers, high-level representatives from across the industry
spectrum attend and weigh in with a variety of experiences and perspectives.

Benefits to Council Members:
Opportunities for Learning and Networking
Many global companies recognize the importance of biodiversity to theirbusinesses. However, they have few opportunities to learn about biodiversity andshare approaches with like-minded companies both within and outside theirindustry. The Council provides a forum for leading companies to gain valuable
insights from other Council members on real world solutions for integrating
biodiversity consideration into company operations.

Access to Business and Environment Expertise
Scientific, policy, economic and business experts from a variety of organizations
are called upon to provide their expertise on integrating environmental issues intobusiness management systems. These unique perspectives help Council members
to better understand how their companies can most effectively contribute toconservation efforts. Council members also receive all publications from CI and
CI’s Center for Environmental Leadership in Business

Visibility and Acknowledgment of Council Members’ Participation
CI believes it is important to acknowledge the positive contributions of the private
sector to biodiversity conservation as a way to encourage the replication ofenvironmentally friendly practices across industry sectors. As Council members
work with CI to achieve conservation outcomes, those successes will be profiled
at CI special events and receive distinct acknowledgment in CI’s annual report,
newsletter and website.
Analysis and Score: 2

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

33

Ford’s work with CI predicated on its participation in the Business andBiodiversity Council, a program of the CELB. And as seen above, the Business andBiodiversity Council is essentially a think group that leverages business andenvironmental expertise to come up with better practices of doing business that protect
biodiversity. Once again, this certainly sounds like a sage idea, but where are the results?
All we read is that members gain access to the a “variety of experiences andperspectives.” The only deliverable that is clear with the council is that CI is trying to
influence more sustainable business practices by placing industry and environmental
leaders at the same table and letting the details get filled in later. The statement does
mention that successful outcomes will be reported in CI publications, such as the annual
report and website, but to date, there is no clear report on what the council or thepartnership with Ford has achieved. Since Ford did not contribute financially to CI in
2007, it avoids receiving a 1.

ToyotaCI Statement38

Conservation International Announces a Partnership with Toyota to Protect
Philippines’ Rain Forests
Effort shows strong tie between conservation and community development
Manila, Philippines – Conservation International (CI) today announced apartnership with Toyota to support efforts to restore and protect more than 4,000
acres of the Philippines’ Peñablanca Protected Landscape and Seascape (PPLS),
located in the Northeastern part of one of the nation’s main islands. In addition to38

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/news-events/press_releases/091307.xml -- March 5, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

34

protecting the forests, local communities will receive additional benefits from
agroforestry projects under the three-year agreement.
The site was chosen to launch the partnership between CI and Toyota because it
will support efforts to link the PPLS with the adjacent Northern Sierra Madre
Natural Park. Additionally, the on-the-ground work will demonstrate how forest
protection efforts benefit both biodiversity and community development.

“Toyota’s support for CI’s conservation efforts is crucial because these forests areunder constant pressure from illegal logging and wildlife hunting,” said David W.
Hess, Vice President of CI’s Indonesia & Philippines Program. “With thisfunding, CI and other key stakeholders will be able to link two critical protectedareas, thereby enhancing the survival of animals and plants that need connectivity
to thrive.”

Combined, the PPLS and Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park represent a
seamless block of protected forest larger than Switzerland. Within the PPLS, there
are a number of threatened vertebrate species, including three considered
Critically Endangered by the World Conservation Union: the Philippine crocodile(Crocodylus mindorensis) the Northern Luzon Shrew Rat (Crunomys fallax), andthe country’s national bird, the Philippine eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi).
The partnership was formerly announced at the Presidential Palace in Manila, in
the presence of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Key stakeholders
in the PPLS project were also present, including representatives from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and regional partners
Protected Area Management Board (PAMB)/Protected Area Superintendent(PASU) and local municipalities of PPLS.

"Restoring a forest to its primeval power of sustaining biodiversity, while at thesame time tailoring the restoration to satisfy human needs, requires thecooperation of all stakeholders," Environment and Natural Resources Secretary
Lito Atienza said. “We need nothing less than a totality of commitment,
coherence of actions, and a clear division as well as sharing of labor that leaves nogaps.”

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

35

In addition to the benefits for species protection and local economic development,
this work supports CI’s larger efforts to stem global deforestation and climatechange. It is a little-known fact that deforestation is responsible for almost aquarter of all greenhouse gas emissions - more than double the amount from theworld’s cars and trucks.

The project aims to obtain third-party certification from the Climate, Community
and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards, a standard that evaluates forest-based carbon
mitigation projects to foster the integration of best-practice and multiple-benefit
approaches into forest-based projects. The certification will include quantificationof the carbon benefits over the term of the project.
Toyota Funding of $1.5 million Makes Philippine Forestry Project Possible
With Toyota providing $1.5 million in funding, the first three-year phase of the
project will allow the promotion of forest conservation in the PPLS anddemonstrate the compatibility among multiple uses of forests, including
biodiversity protection, watershed management, ecosystem services for the
benefit of local communities and CO2 offsets. The project is expected to continue
for an additional three years after evaluation of the first phase.
The multiple uses for the project has two main objectives:•

Objective 1: Reforesting and/or re-vegetating approximately 2,995 acres to reestablish forest cover, with communities maintaining and protecting the trees withtechnical support from the local stakeholder, such as the PASU of PPLS and LGU
Peñablanca. Communities will participate in establishing nurseries, producing andplanting seedlings, as well as maintaining the plantations.

•Objective 2: Agroforestry for 1,384 acres: this will provide alternative livelihoods
for local communities within and adjacent to the project site through thepromotion of agroforestry within the designated grass and brush land areas.
“From its popular Prius Hybrid to its partnership with Conservation International
to protect some of the world’s most endangered forests, Toyota is demonstrating atrue commitment to the environment,” said Glenn Prickett, CI’s Senior Vice
President for Business and U.S. Government Relations. “This initiative is a true
example of how the corporate and environmental communities can work together
to demonstrate benefits for forests and communities.”Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

36

The Peñablanca reforestation project will be a validation of the concept ofsustainable development, as pursued in partnership not only by local, but also by
global stakeholders. Secretary Atienza said that it will generate livelihood
opportunities for forest dwellers and give them a stake in conserving theenvironment and its extraordinary biodiversity
Through its Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor Program, CI has been working in
PPLS with local stakeholders since 2002 and has facilitated the expansion of thepark from more than 10,775 acres to 291,574 acres, encompassing the remaining
old growth forest, freshwater and marine ecosystem.

The Philippines is one of the most threatened of the world’s 34 biodiversity
hotspots. The biodiversity hotspots are regions worldwide where 75 percent of theplanet’s most-threatened mammals, birds, and amphibians survive within habitat
covering just 2.3 percent of the Earth’s surface (roughly equivalent to the
combined areas of the five largest U.S. states). Fully 50 percent of the Earth’s
vascular plants and 42 percent of terrestrial vertebrates exist only in these 34
hotspots. Hotspots face extreme threats and have already lost at least 70 percent of
their original vegetation.

Analysis and Score: 4

The Toyota partnership, focused on protecting a vulnerable forest habitat in thePhilippines, offers a clear objective, deliverable and transparent information of thefinancial gift CI received. The company provided CI with $1.5 million to protect andrehabilitate 4,379 acres of threatened forest in a critical area of the Philippines. There isno vague language about “biodiversity conservation” or “best practices.” Clearly, CI and
Toyota have partnered to work one specific conservation project that includes concrete
acreage saved and amount of money spent. While there is a reference to how Toyota’s
Prius and its work with CI are somewhat analogous, which seems to be nothing but PR,

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

37

this partnership seems relatively solid. The only reason not to give it a 5 is that Toyota is
a CI contributor.

Travel & Tourism
Partner

2007 Revenue

Key Environmental Impacts

Hyatt$4 billion39

Carbon emissions; water use

Royal Caribbean$1.46 billion40

Wastewater pollution; carbon emissions; water use

TOTAL$8.67 billion of annual purchase power

Partner

Credibility Score (15)Conservation mechanism(s)

Hyatt

2

UnclearRoyal Caribbean

1

Best practices of wastewater management

CI Statement on Travel and Tourism41
Meeting a critical need
Tourism, one of the world's largest industries, is expected to increase fourfold
from its 1996 levels by 2010. While all segments of the industry are growing,tourism in areas with significant levels of biodiversity is increasing at a much
faster rate than the industry as a whole. Increased tourism can pose a threat tosensitive ecosystems. Because the natural and cultural resources of a destination
are often what attract travelers in the first place, the industry has a vested interestin protecting the areas in which they operate.

39

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/40/40231.html -- March 10, 2009http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485164,00.html – March 10, 200941
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/travel-leisure/ -- March 10, 200940

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

38

Opportunity
We are working with tour operators, hotel and resort owners, and cruise lines tointegrate biodiversity conservation into their operating practices and protect
environmentally sensitive destinations.
Hyatt
CI Statement42

Our Partnership with The Hyatt is focused on supporting CI's biodiversity
conservation efforts.
•

The Hyatt is a member of CI's Business and Biodiversity Council, acommunity of companies committed to leveraging their businessexperience and resources to conserve biodiversity.

Analysis and Score: 2

There’s very little to analyze with respect to CI’s partnership with Hyatt. It is amember of the Business and Biodiversity Council, but we know nothing beyond that. The
rationale that CI uses to partner with the travel and tourism sector—the fact that global
tourism to fragile ecosystems is increasing—seems to be pragmatic with the primarymechanism for conservation being using partners as education and awareness players.
However, since CI provides no details, there’s not much credibility in this partnershipbased on the public disclosures. Hyatt does not provide financial support to CI, so thepartnership avoids a 1.

42

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/hyatt.xml -- March 10, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

39

Royal Caribbean
CI Statement43
Royal Caribbean Ltd. established the Ocean Fund in 1996 in an effort to support
marine conservation and environmental organizations worldwide. A total of $7.1
million has been awarded to organizations, including CI.
•

On March 30, 2007 The Royal Caribbean Ocean’s Fund awarded$796,000 in 15 grants to marine and environmental conservation
organizations. A $100,000 grant went to CI to continue the work of theCampaign to Conserve Caribbean Biodiversity.

•

With support from the Ocean Fund, scientists from CI and partnerorganizations, discovered new marine species in the Netherlands Antilles
on Saba Bank in February of 2006.

International Council of Cruise Lines and Conservation International
Announce Joint Initiative
Washington, DC—The International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) andConservation International (CI) today announced a joint initiative to protect
biodiversity in top cruise destinations and promote industry practices thatminimize the cruise industry's environmental impact.
The Ocean Conservation and Tourism Alliance sets up four initial priority areas
including:Best Practices for Wastewater Management: improved shipboard technology,
specifically accelerating and adopting Advanced Wastewater Purification (AWP)
systems.
Establishing Destination Partnerships: working with local governments andcommunities to maintain high-quality travel experiences by protecting the naturaland cultural assets of cruise destinations.
Promoting Environmental Education: raising guest and crew awareness of andsupport for critical conservation issues.

43

http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/royal_caribbean.xml -- March 10, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

40

Promoting Vendor Environmental Education: lessening the environmental
impacts of suppliers.
The initiative's first step will be to establish a science panel of experts inconservation, environmental technologies, and cruise industry environmental
practices. The science panel will independently review core environmental issues
facing the cruise industry and provide advice as to the best course of action todeal with those critical challenges. The ICCL and CI have committed to having
the science panel established and initial assessments ready for presentation at the
Seatrade Cruise Shipping Convention in March 2004.
"We could not have a better partner. Conservation International has a long historyof working with business to pioneer conservation solutions that are scientifically,
economically and culturally sound," said Michael Crye, president of ICCL.
"Our vision is to work with leaders in the tourism industry and demonstrate how
the industry and conservation community can work together to produce mutually
beneficial results. The goal is to not only protect the places tourists visit but also
maximize positive contributions to conservation in high biodiversity areas where
the cruise industry operates," said Glenn Prickett, senior vice president ofConservation International and executive director of the Center for Environmental
Leadership in Business. "We are encouraged the industry shares our vision."
The ICCL, which represents fifteen of the world's leading cruise lines, hascommitted $850,000 to the initiative and its supporting projects. Conservation
International has matched this contribution with an investment of $250,000.
Of the initial areas of work, AWP research and development has been a strong
focus for the industry for several years. Combined efforts have resulted in rapid
technological advancements and the installation of several prototypes on morethan 20 ships—at a cost of $50 million. These systems, while capable of meetinghigh standards for treatment, are still in the early stages of application for generaluse. The industry is committed to continuing to invest in improved AWP systems,
and installing those systems on its ships. CI will work with the industry andsystem manufacturers to expedite the process.
The Alliance's focus on tourism and biodiversity issues is important because
approximately 70 percent of cruise destinations are in the biodiversity hotspots,
including the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, Mexico, the Panama Canal Zone, andthe South Pacific. A preponderance of species diversity is found exclusively
within the earth's 25 biodiversity hotspots, which combined cover a very small
percentage of the Earth's land surface. Each biodiversity hotspot has already lost

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

41

the majority of its original species habitat, and the remainder faces imminent
threat of further destruction.
Today's partnership formalizes a relationship that began two years ago. In 2001,
CI began working with member lines when it was researching the industry's
overall performance and its past and future challenges. CI released its interim
report, A Shifting Tide: Environmental Challenges and Cruise Industry
Responses, in 2003.

Analysis and Score: 1

While there seems to be a degree of honesty about the significant environmental
implications world cruise ships bring to 25 of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, thispartnership just doesn’t seem to hold much water. CI is receiving funding from both
Royal Caribbean and the trade group, the International Council of Cruise Lines, tomaximize donations towards priority conservation areas. There is mention of developing
best practices on wastewater management, but there are not any concrete objectives ordeliverables. CI President and CEO Peter Seligman has repeatedly defended Royal
Caribbean in the media when one of its ships is cited for an environmental violation.44
There’s little doubt that the cruise ship industry benefits greatly by having CI as asupportive partner, where there is simply no discernible victory for the environment.

Conclusion: The Lessons Learned

44

Conversation with Christine MacDonald – February 12, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

42

Partner

Credibility Score (15)Conservation mechanism(s)Anglo American4

Conservation easement support

Toyota4Land protection support in the Philippines

Monsanto

3.5

Sustainable supply chain

Statoil

3.5

Member EBIBP Plc3Conservation easements; member EBI

Bunge Limited

3

Brazilian farmer environmental
compliance

Cargill3

Business & biodiversity integration

Chevron3

Member EBI

Shell

3

Member EBI

ConocoPhillips

2Best practices for oil and gas development

Ford Motor Co.

2

Biodiversity conservation

Hyatt

2

Unclear

BG Group Plc

1

Photography

Newmont Corp.

1

Best practices for mining in Hotspots

Rio Tinto1

Best practices for mining in Hotspots

Royal Caribbean

1

Best practices of wastewater management

SAMPLE MEAN

2.5/5

While this partnership evaluation methodology has not been flawless, it has raised
important questions of how CI can defend itself against critics that claim its purchasepower partnership strategy has more do to with green-washing than it does withproductive conservation strategy. The mean credibility score of the sample was 2.5/5
suggesting that on the average, none of the 15 partnerships scrutinized are without

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

43

obvious credibility problems such as conflict of interest via financial gifts, or lack oftransparency about the conservation activities and outcomes. One could certainly argue
that only an expert on the environmental impacts of mining, energy, travel, tourism andagribusiness could properly evaluate these partnerships. In that case, why hasn’t CI
encouraged a third-party to do just that and report about the findings on its website? Ifthese partnerships are effective, then why doesn’t CI invest more in proving theirproductivity and success? These remain the unanswered questions that hinder CI fromdemonstrating that its purchase power partnership strategy can be the effective solution
the environment demands.
The major environmental groups will undoubtedly continue to employ thepurchase power partnership model with the corporate sector. Today, even private equity
firms are using the model; Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts with $59.9 billion in assets, ispartnering with the Environmental Defense Fund on finding ways to make its holdings
more energy efficient. The business case for an environmental strategy has been made.
And yet, in the example of CI, the NGO case for partnering with industry while repletewith good arguments, remains reliant on unverified positive externalities. CI must do
more to demonstrate how the marginal benefits of partnering with industries withsignificant environmental impacts surpass the marginal credibility costs.

Discussion Questions

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
1. Who are the most important stakeholders in these partnerships? Do they sharecommon interests?
2. How do we determine when a corporation is engaging in green washing? Whatcriteria or evidence would you use to decide?
3. If these partnerships are effective, then why doesn’t CI invest more in proving
their productivity and success?
4. Why hasn’t CI encouraged a third-party to properly evaluate these partnerships
and report about the findings on its website?
5. Should conservation groups stick to the “pressure” strategy as opposed topartnerships? Can a combination of the two work?

44

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

45

References
Esty, Daniel C. and Andrew S. Winston, Green to Gold. New York: Wiley, 2006.
MacDonald, Christine. Green, Inc. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2008.
Conservation International Annual Reports 2006-2008
McDonald’s 2005 Financial Statement
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/101_200.html-- December 3, 2008
http://www.angloamerican.co.uk/aa/media/releases/2009pr/2009-02-20/ -February 28, 2009http://www.londonstockexchange.com/engb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedpri
ces.htm?ti=BG. – February 28, 2009http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?symb
ol=BP.L – March 1, 2009http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/snapshots/385.html -March 1, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/energy-mining/anglo-american.xml -March 1, 2009http://web.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/partners/corporate/bggroup.xml -- March
4, 2009
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/bp.xml -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/ImageCache/CELB/content/energy_2dmining/ebi_2epdf/v1/ebi.pdf -- March 4, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/chevron_texaco.xml -- March 3,
2009
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/conocophillips.xml -- March 3, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/newmont.xml -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/riotinto.xml -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/shell.xml -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/statoil.xml -- March 2, 2009

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

46

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/58/58878.html -- March 2, 2009http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0805/gallery.private_companies.fort
une/2.html -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/bunge.xml -- March 3, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/cargill.xml -- March 2, 2009http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/41/41889.html -- March 2, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/ford_motor_company.xml -- March
2, 2009
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/strategies/business_biodiversity.xml -- March 5,
2009
http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/news-events/press_releases/091307.xml -- March
5, 2009
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/40/40231.html -- March 10, 2009http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485164,00.html – March 10, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/travel-leisure/ -- March 10, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/hyatt.xml -- March 10, 2009http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/partners/com/royal_caribbean.xml -- March 10,2009