文章详细页面
1.This paper is submitted to the conference organizers as a contribution to the discussion at this “Business and Civil Society Forum and Exhibition”.This paper does not necessarily reflect the position of the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development（ANGOC）
2.Why？Because corporations and NGOs have never cared much for each other.Try mentioning Greenpeace to an executive of ExxonMobil，for example，or Dow Chemical，and the violent reaction you’ll get would be more or less typical of how corporations regard activist groups.NGOs are just as predictably biased against big business，and make scant effort to hide their antagonism.
3.Following the recent scandals involving Enron，Worldcom，and Tyco，NGOs’estimation of big business has dropped several notches down.We are dismayed by the scale and brazenness of these financial crimes，but this is by no means the only kind of corporate behavior we take issue with.What concern us more are corporate activities and policies that undermine people’s rights，destroy the environment，and put communities and their livelihoods at risk.For example，we are bothered that Chevron Texaco，whose oil drilling operations have left hundreds of toxic pools in the northern part of the Ecuadorian Amazon，has not been called to account and is in fact lobbying the government in Ecuador to put down protests by local people.We are offended by Unocal’s cosy relations with the notorious military government in Burma，in exchange for security and forced labor for its gas pipeline project there.We think it is reprehensible that ExxonMobil condones and is in fact complicit in human rights abuses，including torture and killings，committed by Indonesian troops in Aceh province.
4.These and hundreds of similar cases have left many NGOs deeply skeptical that corporations can act in any other way except to further their own interests.
5.It comes as no surprise to us that many encounters between these two sectors have been head-on collisions.For three years，for example，the Rainforest Action Network（RAN）had conducted a campaign to force Citigroup to adopt more socially and environmentally responsible lending policies.RAN called a ceasefire recently when the giant bank relented.Greenpeace activists have taken on Exxon，demanding that the oil company cut back on its production of ozone depleting fuels.A small Indian NGO，the Centre for Science and Environment（CSE），is currently engaged in some major mudslinging with Pepsi and Coke over a report it published that the cola brands contain pesticides many times the acceptable norms.Pepsi and Coke denounced the findings as malicious，prompting the NGO to dare the beverage giants to take it to court.
6.The acrimony between NGOs and certain members of big business is real enough.But it is also true that as early as a decade ago，there has been a growing trend of corporations seeking out “partnerships” with NGOs or other civic groups in projects that have some kind of social benefit.
7.The precursor to such partnerships appears to have been those forged between the United Nations and the commercial sector.In the run-up to the highly publicized 1992 Earth Summit，some of the biggest transnational corporations（TNCs）and political leaders had declared that they would henceforth cooperate and dialogue with governments rather than confronting them for the sake of finding solutions to the world’s social and environmental problems.
8.Since then，the UN has been an enthusiastic promoter of Public-Private Partnerships（PPPs）.Today，in fact，there is hardly an agency in the UN system that does not actively seek out some sort of rapprochement between itself and the corporate sector.2
9.Such PPPs have included such activities as：
·Fundraising（requesting or accepting corporate donations in cash or in kind，now often called “resource mobilization”）；
·Negotiations，or public tenders，for lower product prices（e.g.for pharmaceuticals）；
·Research collaborations（often publicly subsidized）；
·Consultations，negotiations and discussions with corporations；
·Co-regulatory arrangements to implement “voluntary” codes of conduct（with or without external，independent monitoring）；
·Corporate social responsibility/cause-related marketing projects；
·Contracting out of public services（such as water supply，hospital cleaning and refuse collection）.
10.Other factors and events may also explain the surge in corporate philanthropic involvement.Some pundits believe that the Asian financial crisis，which has been largely attributed to the lack of corporate transparency and accountability，has made companies keen to redeem themselves in the public eye.Others think that since the present crop of corporate executives has been imbued，whether they wanted to or not，with the values of their activist generation，they are thus more inclined to steer their companies in a new，more socially responsible direction.
11.Another explanation is not quite as charitable.It is that corporate involvement in community development is simply good for business.
12.Corporations that choose to engage in such partnerships usually do so with an eye to maximizing the economic benefits from such an involvement.This is how corporations are structured and this is how corporations are run.Corporations that behave otherwise act against their very nature，and in violation of their fiduciary duty to maximize the returns for their shareholders.
13.For instance，the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation，which has donated heavily to many UN campaigns such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization，has been praised as a model for corporate citizenship.But one must concede at least the possibility that this apparently selfless act by the famously ruthless Bill Gates had gone some way towards improving his image during the anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft.
14.A fourth explanation credits the movement towards greater corporate responsibility to the efforts of a wide range of stakeholders to pressure companies to address a “triple bottom line”，such that companies measure not just their economic but also their social and environmental performance.
15.The primary stakeholders in this effort to hold corporations accountable include business owners or shareholders，employees，customers and suppliers.It is heartening that some shareholders have embraced such causes as human rights and environmental protection，and done away with sweatshops，among others.Some companies have also made moves towards greater transparency，for instance，by calling in external agencies to assess their compliance with labor，environmental and other standards.
16.Customers have likewise been a potent force for change，especially in countries with strong consumer movements.Product boycotts called in response to corporate misconduct can paralyze a business when vigorously supported by customers.
17.NGOs，communities，governments and international agencies comprise the secondary stakeholders.Governments use both carrot and stick to encourage greater corporate responsibility.Legislation should be enough，but is frequently circumvented.The carrot of a favorable rating for good behavior，such as conferred by awards，has been more effective.International bodies have their version of such citations，as well as codes of conduct which governments sign up for but are not legally enforceable.
18.But regardless of the reason that NGOs and the business sector have been drawn together，the benefits have hardly been one-sided.NGOs have benefited as well.Corporations are a valuable source of funding in this hard time.Having multiple sources of support protects NGOs from becoming overly dependent on their traditional funding partners，particularly the government.Corporate partners also bring with them a set of skills that are crucial to problem resolution and community-building，and which few NGOs are equipped with，such as financial management，marketing，strategic planning，and use of information technology.Many NGOs have also started to sell their products and services，and partnership with the business sector has helped them to behave more business-like，and given them ideas on how to make their activities self-sustaining.Moreover，corporations bring to the partnership a hard-nosed，results-oriented attitude that is often lacking in their process-focused NGO counterparts.
19.We would like to share with you some examples of partnership between NGOs and the business sector that we think exemplify the kind of joint action we NGOs aspire for.For the sake of brevity，we selected two cases，the Peduli Aqua-DML Program in Indonesia and the Cebu Hillyland Development Program in the Philippines.The first program has ended while the second case has expanded its program coverage and has continued to benefit from NGO-business partnership.In fact，a major outcome of this Cebu Hillyland program was the birth of the Cebu Uniting for Sustainable Water.
