NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a
Global Agenda to End Poverty:
A Review of the Issues

A Background Paper for
The Learning Circle on NGO Engagement with the Private Sector
Canadian Council for International Cooperation
Policy Team

Moira Hutchinson
January 2000

Acknowledgements: This paper was prepared by Moira Hutchinson as an introductory paper to issues for the CCIC’s Learning Circle on NGO Engagement with the Private
Sector. CCIC is grateful to the IDRC’s Canadian Partnerships Program for funding for the Learning Circle, including the production of this paper. The author wishes to express appreciation for the editing and other assistance provided by
Brian Tomlinson of the CCIC, and for suggestions from other members of the planning group for the Learning Circle: Andrea Botto, Anne Buchanan, Tim Draimin,
Philippe Jean, Brian Murphy and Lynda Yanz.

2

NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a
Global Agenda to End Poverty :
A Review of the Issues
Table of Contents
1. Introduction

1

2. What is this discussion really about?

2

3. Canadian NGOs: issues in advocacy, dialogue and partnership

3

3.1 Advocacy

3

3.2 Direct dialogue

6

3.3 Programming social partnerships and strategic alliances

8

3.3.1 What is driving the discussion of social programming partnerships and strategic alliances?
a) Corporate interests
b) Intermediary organizations
c) NGO interests
d) Government agendas
e) Overlapping NGO-corporate interests?

10
10
11
12
13
14

3.3.2 Financial relationships

15

3.3.3 Strategic alliances and programming partnerships
a) NGO and service / consulting firm partnerships
b) Mining sector alliances and partnerships
c) Codes of conduct for consumer goods

16
16
17
18

4. Cross-cutting issues

19

4.1 Approaches to social change for poverty reduction

19

4.2 Due diligence

19

4.3 Transparency and Accountability

20

Appendix: Canadian corporate social responsibility organizations

21

Endnotes

23

Bibliography

25

NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a
Global Agenda to End Poverty :
A Review of the Issues
1. Introduction
The intent of this paper is to provide a provocative review of critical issues and debates regarding Canadian NGO engagement with the private sector on a global agenda to end poverty, this being the ultimate goal for NGO work. The paper was commissioned in preparation for discussions to take place in a Learning Circle on NGO engagement with the private sector (January to June 2000). The paper does not come to specific conclusions.
Rather, it raises questions about each of three core “paths” identified by the CCIC as the major modalities of NGO-private sector involvements:
Advocacy, and the promotion of appropriate national and multilateral regulation;
Direct dialogue with individual corporations or corporate sectors;
Corporate partnership—programming social partnerships and strategic alliances (CCIC
1999a)
These are obviously overlapping. One NGO, or a group of NGOs, may engage with a corporation or the private sector from several different entry points or forms of engagement, simultaneously or in sequence.
The order in which the paths are listed should not imply a movement through advocacy to dialogue to the most desirable state of partnership. There is an assumption for many that partnership ought to be the goal. But in fact the term “partnership” is somewhat loaded—these days it even has romantic connotations. To offset this bias, the modalities of involvement might better be viewed as paths crisscrossing a circle. One NGO may begin with dialogue and move from there into advocacy; another may begin with dialogue and move into partnership; a third may begin with advocacy and stay on that path, and so on. What may in fact distinguish NGOs is their often implicit assumptions about the process of change necessary to end poverty.
While the term “partnership” is loaded, we will not enter into the huge literature debating how it should be defined, and analysing its implications for NGO action. It is sufficient to say here that we will use it at various points as a convenient shorthand for several types of financial, strategic and programming relationships between NGOs and corporations (to be described later in the paper) in order to distinguish these from advocacy and dialogue. But at the same time, we recognize that we run the risk of implying that these relationships have the attributes of symmetry, reciprocity, equity and fairness that should characterize “true” partnerships.1 We also run the risk of describing as partnerships some relationships which the NGOs directly involved prefer to describe in other terms, seeing themselves as partners with the southern
NGO participants in a tri-partite relationship, but not as partners with the corporations involved.
The implications and limits to partnerships will be elaborated more fully in the Learning Circle.
This paper is not a “how to”, although much of the literature on corporate - NGO relations falls into that genre. Nor is this a research attempt to identify and analyze all instances of corporate

1

- NGO relations in Canada. In fact, the paper and the Learning Circle should be understood as modest contributions to a discussion which is really just beginning, given the fact that the global community is very much at the early stages of NGO-corporate engagement.
Indeed, the rise of civil society to prominence as an increasingly influential factor in global affairs has only been broadly identified in the last decade. A recent short evaluation of the impact of the “corporate accountability movement” (composed primarily of environmental groups, labour unions, religious organizations, activist investors, human rights organizations and Southern NGOs) by Robin Broad and John Cavanagh points to the nascent history of modern efforts to promote greater accountability for global corporations beginning in the
1940s.
The paper and the Learning Circle look critically at case studies (drawing as much as possible on Canadian cases) and the bigger picture to assist NGOs to :
a) clarify and deepen the link between their mission (ending poverty and injustice) and corporate engagement;
b) better understand and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of their strategies and actions in the short and long terms; and
c) strengthen their ongoing practice of assessment, learning and change.
2. What is this discussion really about?
Advocacy by NGOs is not new, dialogue is not new, financial relationships with companies are not new, and partnerships with companies for the protection of the environment are not new.
What is perhaps new is increasing NGO interest in programming and strategic relationships with companies for human rights and socio-economic development, and the implications of these partnerships for poverty reduction, and for other strategies of NGO engagement with companies
(i.e. advocacy and dialogue).
Differences about appropriate and effective paths of engagement with corporations are related to fundamental values or world-views. A relevant question for understanding these values is: how does social change take place and what kind of social change is needed for poverty reduction? The answer for many NGOs is that social change leading to poverty reduction takes place through strategies led by the poor (Inter Pares 1999). But clearly northern and southern social actors and institutions represent a variety of world-views and answers to the question of how social change takes place. We cannot assume that the decision of some NGOs to engage with the private sector through a particular path, e.g. advocacy, reflects consensus among them at the level of fundamental values. Nor can we assume that decisions of some NGOs to engage primarily in partnerships and others primarily in advocacy reflects a difference in fundamental values. It will be important for the Learning Circle to clarify the assumptions and ethical issues relating to the actual experience of various NGOs’ engagements with the private sector, and to do so in a manner that avoids prematurely polarizing discussion.2

2

3. Canadian NGOs: issues in advocacy, dialogue and partnership
We have begun an inventory of current or recent Canadian NGO-private sector relations, including other civil society organizations such as membership based institutions (churches and unions). During the course of the Learning Circle this inventory will be completed and verified.
A number of references are made in the text that follows as we elaborate issues with respect to the various paths of engagement – advocacy, dialogue and partnership. They are meant to explicate issues rather than definitively identify the specifics of each case or document all relevant cases.
3.1 Advocacy
There has been much more Canadian NGO advocacy with governments (on issues affecting corporations) than there has been direct advocacy with corporations, particularly on international issues. Canadian NGOs in the past often seemed intimidated at the thought of even phoning a corporation to ask for a copy of its annual report, let alone asking for a meeting.
Campaigns undertaken by the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility (TCCR) beginning in the mid-1970s involved direct interaction with companies and calls for government action relating to corporate behaviour. The ability to represent shareholders as well as churches brought institutional clout to direct advocacy with corporations. Church shareholders pressed banks and corporations directly about loans for and investment in South Africa, Chile and other countries where there were gross and systematic violations of human rights, about international debt, and about environmental impact. At the same time, they lobbied government regarding related policies. Other groups such as LAWG (the Latin America Working Group) were engaged in research and public education on the implications of Canadian-based multinational investment, e.g. Brascan in Brazil and Falconbridge in the Dominican Republic.
Most other groups in those years focussed on government regulation of corporations, e.g. on the call for government sanctions against South Africa or on the environmental review processes of governments. There were exceptions to this pattern, of course, such as the Nestle and grape boycott campaigns, although the focus of these campaigns in Canada was generally on consumer action in retail stores rather than on the corporate actors themselves.
Beginning in the mid 1980s, there was more direct engagement with corporations by a wider range of NGOs, particularly on domestic issues. For example, support for the claims of the
Lubicon Lake Indian Nation involved direct advocacy with oil and forestry companies along with consumer action targeted on related consumer product companies (Thomas 1999).
More recently, NGOs involved in international issues have been interacting directly with corporations, while at the same time lobbying the government regarding its policies relating to the particular corporate activity. Recent campaigns include RAFI’s with respect to Monsanto
(RAFI 1999); human rights groups on Shell’s activities in Nigeria; an NGO-church coalition on
Talisman in Sudan; NGOs on Placer Dome in the Philippines (Coumans 1999b); and unions, churches and NGOs on manufacturers and retailers’ responsibilities for sweatshops in the apparel industry (Jeffcott and Yanz 1999a).

3

An interesting “next step” in NGO advocacy campaigns has perhaps some characteristics of a partnership relationship, but involves the NGO remaining in advocacy mode to push the corporation itself into parallel advocacy. On the international level, advocacy in the 1980s by
Project Ploughshares and TCCR with companies exporting military goods (e.g. General Motors and Bombardier) included pressing for company support for public disclosure by the Canadian government of the countries it considered to be off-limits for military exports. The companies themselves found the lack of a transparent process frustrating. More recently, this strategy was used successfully in the 1998 shareholder proposal which resulted in retail company support for a federal government task force on sweatshop labour.
In the 1990s Canadian NGOs and citizen movements have played leading roles in global advocacy campaigns responding to the consolidation of what they consider a global corporate agenda (structural adjustment and liberalization) through the International Monetary Fund, the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). Canadian NGOs, human rights organizations and environmental NGOs have developed sophisticated knowledge, research and advocacy with international networks of counterparts responding to the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (OECD), the
Asian financial meltdown (APEC), issues of genetic resources (FAO), NAFTA and its extension in the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas, and the liberalization of capital flows as promoted by the IMF and the World Bank. While not directed at specific corporations, these
NGOs support these advocacy campaigns as a means for improving the policy framework within which the private sector can contribute to ending poverty. Some, but not all, suggest (at least implicitly) that they should have priority over individual corporate campaigns. Clarification of strategic goals and the potential for systemic changes is important for assessing the relevance of this assumption.
Certainly, the strategy of raising systemic issues with individual corporations (as distinct from raising company-specific issues ) should not be overlooked. Pressure on corporations may have some indirect influence on government policy or public opinion (recognizing the close coherence in the 1990s of government policy and the corporate agenda). For example:
Churches in the 1980s engaged directly with Canadian banks on the issue of international debt, calling for bank disclosure of sovereign loans to developing countries and for measures to reduce outstanding debt. There was no real expectation of anything but small adjustments by the banks, but higher hopes for an indirect impact on government policies through the public disclosure of information and bank positions accomplished through the campaign.
The fair trade coffee campaign aimed at large corporations and small retailers is intended not only to create a market for fair-trade coffee, but to raise broader issues about the systemic issues in commodity trade and its impact on developing countries.
Among Canadian NGOs, issues of strategy often mask different opinions about whether corporate power can be influenced or contained through direct advocacy with the corporate sector. For example, in the South African anti-apartheid campaign, and now in the campaign regarding Talisman in Sudan, proponents of company withdrawal from those countries take two different positions on strategy. (There are also opposing positions on whether the companies
4

should withdraw, but this is another issue.) Some advocate immediate divestment of shares from the company, knowing that the direct financial impact on the company may be negligible but emphasizing the effect on the company’s reputation of the moral message conveyed by a
“clean hands” decision. Others take a longer-range view, and believe that investors should retain their investments, at least for a reasonable period of time, in order to use their positions as owners of the company to influence the public, other investors and perhaps even management itself, and build the movement for responsible investment (Ryan 1999a).
Advocacy on international issues is increasingly seen as an important activity for Canadian
NGOs, but perhaps less than half undertake specific activities in this area.3 A much smaller percentage of NGOs would appear to be engaged in advocacy that relates to corporations rather than government. Much of the advocacy is carried out through coalitions, such as the
CCIC’s “In Common” campaign, the Americas Policy Group, and the Halifax Initiative.
Communication with a wider range of groups in all parts of the world through the Internet has also improved the reach and effectiveness of the advocacy work undertaken by a relatively small number of Canadian groups (Keck and Sikkink 1998).
The commitment by NGOs to research in support of advocacy appears to be even lower than commitment to engage in advocacy, although we have no figures to support this claim. But
CIDA cutbacks to development education groups and reduced church funding for ecumenical social justice coalitions certainly seem to have contributed to a lack of research capacity.
Without a serious long-term commitment to research, NGOs know little about the impact of
Canadian companies in developing countries, apart from periodic reports of disasters such as those associated with some mining companies (Hutchinson 1998). The process of preparing the 1998 report of The North-South Institute on Canadian companies in developing countries was an eye-opener to most of the researchers about the lack of good data or case studies on the basis of which to make an assessment of the contribution of Canadian companies to development, or indeed whether foreign investment does contribute to development (Hibler and
Beamish 1998). Without in depth research, advocacy is often undertaken as a short-term response to headlines and on issues given priority in campaigns originating in the US and
Europe. Where there are some ideas about what corporations could do to improve their impact on poverty reduction, NGOs have done insufficient work to test the real power of advocacy to advance those ideas.
Many Southern organizations have developed their own policy and advocacy networks, although with less attention than in the north to direct lobbying and monitoring of corporations.
NGOs in the South initially allied themselves with popular movements to oppose the state and ignored business. Now, globalisation and deregulation have led some to engage more directly with corporations. For example, the South Korean NGO, Citizens Alliance for Consumer
Protection (CACP), organises high-profile media events to get large corporations to sign environmental agreements (Murphy 1998). In some cases, Canadian organizations provide support for southern NGO and union engagement with corporations. For example, groups in the Philippines are engaged in direct pressure on Placer Dome, with the help of information and advocacy within Canada provided by the Calancan Bay Villagers Association and more recently,
MiningWatch Canada. Canadian union-related development organizations (the “labour funds”)

5

and the Canadian Labour Congress provide capacity-building assistance to southern unions and labour-related groups to strengthen union negotiation with companies. Canadian NGOs along with unions are also exploring the ways in which they might channel resources to southern unions and NGOs for worker training related to the implementation of codes of conduct. But the general assumption has been that where transnational companies are involved, transnational and northern NGOs can be more effective. However, while it is true that northern
NGOs have sources of leverage not available to southern NGOs, there is clearly a need for increased financial and other resources for southern NGO research and advocacy with corporations. Communication with southern partners about the strategies being used in northern advocacy campaigns also needs more attention. For example:
Despite years of clarifying issues around boycotts, there are still groups whose advocacy—directly or indirectly— invites consumer boycotts when these are not wanted by southern partners.
Southern partners ask for northern support in dealing with northern corporations, and then are sometimes quick to condemn the nature of the response because there has been insufficient communication about the kinds of tools or strategies that are most effective in the northern context.
3.2 Direct dialogue
Smart NGOs avoid invitations from corporations to dialogue for its own sake when there are no clear goals in mind and no clear lines of accountability for the outcome of the dialogue.
Dialogue should either be seen as a process of preparation for advocacy, or as a process leading to some form of policy outcome, strategic alliance or programming partnership. Of course, the goal may change as a result of dialogue—from partnership to advocacy, or vice versa. NGOs may invite dialogue as part of an advocacy process. The dialogue is requested in order to clarify areas of agreement and disagreement and to elicit and clarify corporate policy positions. It may also provide information that strengthens the NGO position—sometimes by correcting misinformation. Advocacy by the member churches of TCCR always included a request for a meeting with senior management before any publicity about an issue was released. Companies would have been surprised to learn how often they revealed information that was immensely helpful to a campaign.
NGOs may also invite or agree to dialogue for the negotiation of policy, strategic alliances or programming partnerships. For example, in the process of negotiation between civil society groups and industry on a code of conduct for fair labour conditions in the apparel industry, civil society participants agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement. They decided that there are situations where confidentiality is defensible, in order that negotiations don’t take place in the media. This is standard procedure in union negotiations with companies. But the terms of the

6

agreement in this case were that while the industry proposal is to be kept confidential, the civil society groups’ proposals were public. Industry has been therefore unable to prevent civil society groups from continuing to campaign for public support for their proposals (Roseman
1999).
Clear goals for dialogue and negotiation, and accountability to members or partners for the outcomes, help NGOs avoid co-optation. Just because companies try to co-opt NGOs through dialogue processes, it doesn’t mean they succeed. In some cases, concern might more appropriately be expressed about the possible co-optation of the public. Where NGOs have little time and fewer resources for research, including dialogue with corporations, corporations can more easily provide information to the public that is not challenged.
Change as a result of dialogue is sometimes possible. There have been a few occasions where dialogue has taken place with a corporate manager who has responded to ethical arguments and who holds sufficient power within the company to act on the basis of the dialogue. For example, the decisions of the Royal and Toronto-Dominion Banks to implement policies banning loans to apartheid South Africa—far in advance of other Canadian banks—may have reflected an ethical response by management, although it was clearly a response, as well, to effective public pressure.
On the other hand, many NGOs have met the enlightened corporate public relations representative who speaks the language of social justice better than they do, who has no real power within the company but genuinely sees herself as a change agent, and who invites NGO support in helping her maintain her corporation’s progress towards corporate social responsibility goals. Without clear dialogue goals, involvement of senior management or a commitment from senior management to follow through on agreements, and accountability back to constituencies, the NGO is not only vulnerable to co-optation, but the process of dialogue is likely of questionable utility, diverting the NGO from better use of limited resources.
The history of NGO interaction with Placer Dome with respect to its operations in Marinduque in the Philippines has led Catherine Coumans to conclude that co-optation has been a factor in some Canadian NGO responses (Coumans 1999b). Placer Dome's perspectives, she believes, came to be trusted more than voices coming from the island. The factors, she suggests, were:
Some of the NGOs negotiating with Placer Dome had already started down a path of
"constructive engagement" with the company in the years directly preceding the spill, and had developed a “comfort level” with the company.
Shared language and culture between Canadian NGOs and Canadian company officials played a role in meetings between these NGOs and officials. The language of confrontation coming from the Philippines was sometimes perceived as strident by
Canadians and made them uncomfortable.
Geography and modern communications made it easier for Canadian NGOs to meet and discuss issues with the corporation on a regular basis than with the remote local community. 7

While we can find both positive and negative examples of NGO dialogue with corporations, overall the experience of Canadian development NGOs in this area is very limited. More opportunities are needed (of the sort provided by the Learning Circle) to share experiences, and to learn from NGOs in other countries such as the UK, where a process of dialogue led to a significant experiment in partnership, the Ethical Trading Initiative.4
3.3 Programming social partnerships and strategic alliances
In the words of the “Concept Paper” for the Learning Circle, the CCIC reported (CCIC 1999, 1):
At the end of the decade, there is an emerging consensus among governments in the
North, multilateral institutions and some leading NGOs that a more equitable distribution of global / national resources (and at least a reduction in poverty) will come about only as a result of concerted efforts that bridge the market, civil society and government in
“dynamic and fluid activity” (CIDA 1996).
According to the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, the momentum for responsible business practices and a partnership approach to development has been increased with the financial crisis affecting South East Asia, Russia and Latin America. The crisis
... underscored the economic and social risks which have arisen largely as a result of a lack of transparency, imprudent lending and cronyism. It has ultimately put an onus on business to contribute to solutions that secure economic inclusions. Coupled to this has been a groundswell in public pressure on companies to meet the changing expectations of society and report more explicitly on social, environmental and economic performance
(PWBLF 1999c).
Other NGOs have taken different lessons from these crises, calling for governments and multilateral institutions to work together to place limits on unregulated capital flows and discourage speculation through a ‘Tobin Tax’.
As the CCIC points out (CCIC 1999c, 1):
Others have raised concerns that this paradigm of “partnerships” may mask systematic agendas to reconfigure relations with countries that in the end will accentuate exclusion and poverty. “Simply put, it cannot be assumed, a priori, that a harmony model with aligned interests between state, capital, labour and civic forces is appropriate or desirable at this moment in time for all societies.” (Fowler 1999,5)
In any case, we should not assume that acceptance by NGOs of a “harmony model” underlies all instances of NGO-corporate partnership, even though that model may be prominent in corporate promotion of partnerships and in the thinking of some NGOs. Underlying assumptions should be explored in relation to specific cases and the strategies of the NGOs involved. Some partnerships may be wily efforts on the part of NGOs to use the power of particular corporations in an agenda of increasing the power of poor people to assert their rights. Nevertheless the degree to which communities of people living in poverty are (and can be) involved in these strategies should be a crucial issue for these NGOs.

8

Three types of partnerships: financial sponsorships, strategic alliances, and program relationships, are discussed below. A complete taxonomy of all of the forms of partnership would no doubt add to these. It would have to take into account the type of corporation involved. Is it a transnational, a small or medium enterprise (SME) based in the north, or a SME based in the south? Is it involved in the south as a consulting firm, investor, importer or exporter? There are also different types of NGOs. Is it an “international” NGO or a domestic
NGO based in the north or the south? Is it a northern NGO involved directly in project management or does it work only through southern NGOs? A partnership between Monsanto and Care International raises questions that are not all applicable to a partnership between
Horizons of Friendship, a small Ontario-based NGO, and Eagle.ca, an Internet service provider in Ontario.
Partnerships are most common in the environmental area, both globally and in Canada. A number of groups internationally have forged partnerships—even Greenpeace, noted for its corporate advocacy campaigns and its refusal of corporate donations, has forged strategic alliances, for example, with the insurance industry (Flynn 1996). In the area of human rights, there seem to be more dialogues than actual partnerships, as in the dialogue between Amnesty
International in the Netherlands and Dutch multinationals (INTRAC 1998). In the area of labour rights, partnerships have developed for the design and implementation of codes of conduct.
There are not as yet very many corporate-NGO partnerships in other areas affecting development and poverty reduction. However, some international partnerships focusing on health care and on resource development include
Canadian companies or NGOs:

Partnerships for Health Promotion (PHP) was founded by AMREF (African Medical
Research Foundation), along with the World Health Organization and other organizations, and by corporate members, Smithcline Beecham and Eli Lilly. The aim of PHP is to develop new alliances between private and public sectors and communities for health promotion
(Partnerships for Health Promotion n.d.);
The World Bank’s Business Partners for Development includes Canadian Occidental and
Placer Dome in the natural resources sub-group that focuses on community impacts of resource development; the sub-group is co-chaired by Care International, British Petroleum and the World Bank; and Placer Dome’s Las Cristinas mine in Venezuela is one of the
“focus” projects (World Bank 1999);
The Forest Stewardship Council (which has social as well as environmental goals) includes a “Canadian initiative” as part of the international organization based in Mexico, involving forestry companies, NGOs and unions (Levy 1998).
Canadian NGOs also have indirect connections with international partnerships through their parent organizations, e.g. Save the Children’s partnership with the World Federation of Sporting
Goods Industries and other agencies in Pakistan (INTRAC 1998).

9

3.3.1 What is driving the discussion of social programming partnerships and strategic alliances? a) a) Corporate interests
In looking for the reasons for corporate interest in partnerships, cost and reputation have been important factors to date. In the environmental area, there was the discovery that money could be saved through changes in some manufacturing and resource extraction processes.
In the area of human rights, fear of government sanctions and the costs of defending properties against local resistance have been important motivators for resource companies in seeking partnerships with development organizations (e.g. Shell in Nigeria, BP in Colombia, Talisman in
Sudan, and various Canadian mining companies.).
In the area of social impact, there is no theory of social-efficiency to compare with ecoefficiency, although some companies recognize the importance of social capital, e.g. that fair labour practices may in the long term be cost effective in terms of product quality.
But both environmental and social responsibility are encouraged by corporate concern about
“reputational capital”. So, for example, companies such as Nike and the Gap have been driven primarily by concerns about brand name and northern consumers.
But are the major business-led initiatives simply reactions to these factors of cost and reputation? Another reading is that there is a new generation of corporate leaders who have embraced or are trying to respond to a profound reshaping of society’s expectations—a new “triple bottom line” of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice They are leaders, according to some observers, who recognize that “to refuse the challenge implied by the triple bottom line is to risk extinction” (Elkington 1998, 2). They are acting as change agents within the business world, and to accomplish their goals, are seeking out new relationships with
NGOs, as in the recent agreement between Greenpeace Canada and MacMillan Bloedel regarding certification of forest management practices for environmental and social sustainability.5 The motivation of leaders and companies who endorse this new “triple bottom line” is less important, however, than the question of whether the corporate model it promotes is one which might make a real contribution to poverty reduction in developing countries. Unfortunately,
NGOs have done little of the work on benchmarks which would allow them to assess such a contribution. Furthermore, to put all of the talk of the new “triple bottom line” in context, we note that according to a World Business Council on Sustainable Development report, fewer than 1% of
34,000 transnational companies are active in the debate on corporate social responsibility
(WBCSD 1998, 11). In Canada, there are many indications that interest is even less developed than in the US and Europe. In an appendix, we list the organizations that are trying to promote discussion and action on corporate social responsibility in Canada. But despite their efforts,

10

plans initiated last year by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic
Development for a major conference on international human rights and ethical business practice had to be cancelled because of lack of corporate interest. Does this suggest that Canadian international development NGOs have an opportunity and a responsibility to help stimulate and define the discussion? If so, do they have the informed constituencies, the resources and skills to make a real impact against formidable corporate opposition?
b) Intermediary organizations
At the international level, partnerships are being encouraged by a host of intermediary organizations that are themselves, in many cases, NGO-corporate partnerships. They supplement and extend the role that foundations have already played in the development of civil society and the private sector linkages (Draimin and Smillie 1999).
These intermediary organizations have substantial resources (raised largely from government and the private sector) for the promotion of corporate-NGO partnerships, and for case-study research on successful partnerships—resources that can be seductive for many NGOs. The key corporate sponsored organization internationally is the UK-based Prince of Wales Business
Leaders Forum (and its NGO-corporate governed Resource Centre), and related projects such as the Partnership for Health Promotion. Another key organization is the Geneva-based World
Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The WBCSD, in cooperation with the
UK International Institute for Environment and Development, is a sponsor of the Global Mining
Initiative that may include Canadian NGOs as well as mining companies in an international multi-stakeholder project to define the role of mining in sustainable economic development
(WBCSD n.d.).
Many other organizations, some corporate-led and some led by civil society organizations, include dialogue or partnership promotion with companies and NGOs among their activities: e.g.
CIVICUS, Instituto Ethos (Brazil), the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium, Philippine Business for Social Progress, Thai Business Initiative in Rural Development, India - Partners in Change,
Social Ventures Network, and the Fund for Peace (Brem 1999).
In Canada, the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy’s “Imagine” program is moving beyond the encouragement of corporate philanthropy to consider the encouragement of cross-sectoral partnerships for community building (Pinney). And the Centre for Innovation in Corporate
Responsibility has undertaken research for business on the value to business of engaging a broader range of community stakeholders (CICR 1999).
Government aid agencies, notably the World Bank, UNCTAD, the UK’s Department for
International Development (United Kingdom 1998), and more recently CIDA, are also promoting partnerships. The World Bank’s Business Partners for Development appears to be the lead government agency, bringing together clusters of global firms, civil society organizations and government authorities to study and promote strategic examples of tri-sector partnerships for development. A British Petroleum request to the World Bank for assistance in designing social programs in Colombia led to the establishment of the overall Business Partners project.

11

c) NGO interests
NGOs seek partnerships for a variety of reasons. Interest is obviously affected by an organization’s fundraising strategies and sometimes its mandate. For example, a development
NGO’s mandate to deliver a service such as housing may make the expertise provided by a company more important to the NGO than related financial flows. On the other hand, a desire for funds to assure institutional survival in the name of “being there” to carry out laudable goals may sometimes cloud the thinking of NGOs regarding the kinds of partnerships they will entertain. It has also been suggested that some northern NGOs are being bypassed by northern government development agencies working directly with southern NGOs, and are being out bid by the private sector for provision of services that were previously in the domain of NGOs
(Edwards 1999). They may therefore be responsive to the overtures of companies seeking
NGO assistance in carrying out their contracts.
For many international and large northern NGOs engaged in corporate advocacy, the arguments of Simon Zadek, a UK and formerly NGO-based advocate of “civil regulation” of multinationals provide an appealing rational for partnership. 'Civil regulation' encompasses pressure by civil society organizations on corporations to allow civic values and perspectives to mould market values, products and economic opportunities. Zadek says that what is at stake in efforts at civil regulation (which includes both confrontation and partnerships) is not simply the short-term effectiveness of NGOs in bringing about behavioural change. For one thing, even apparent short-term victories may be illusory. He makes a persuasive case that campaigning and other actions to pressure the large multinationals like Shell to behave better has led these companies to respond in ways that actually consolidate their economic power.
Consequently, “the real ‘social dividend’ from effective civil regulation is that it begins to penetrate the corporate animal with civil values and perspectives in a manner that can be understood and interpreted in terms of market behaviour.” This evolution of corporations must take place “if they are to ‘allow’ the state to regulate in areas that protect and enhance people’s livelihoods and the natural environment” (Zadek 1999, 29). Zadek’s vision of civil regulation of transnational corporations or course raises questions of accountability. Who are the NGO regulators, and to whom are they accountable?
“Critic fatigue” has also been put forward as an explanation of why some NGO advocacy groups are open to becoming dialogue or programming partners with companies. Many NGO workers are said to be tired of oppositional approaches. Again on a personal level, it is flattering to be taken seriously by people with power on the inside (Bond 1999).
Finally, some NGOs are working through the somewhat unanticipated need to consider “next steps” once a company has more or less acquiesced in an advocacy campaign (as in some code of conduct initiatives). This movement from advocacy or dialogue to partnership is one with which many environmental groups are familiar, but it is a relatively new experience for human rights and international development groups.

12

For example, the coalition of groups putting pressure on Talisman with respect to its role in
Sudan succeeded in persuading the federal government to support several of its demands of
Talisman. The government’s suggested steps included: advocacy (in the presence of independent experts) with the Government of Sudan on the peace process, human rights in oil regions, and the reservation of oil revenues until peace has been negotiated; and implementation of a code of conduct. The government specified that “it expected Talisman
Energy to respond seriously and constructively” to NGO efforts to engage with private sector interests operating in Sudan (Canada DFAIT1999). Members of the coalition are careful to explain, however, that they do not see NGO involvement as leading to partnership with
Talisman Energy. Instead, their objective in any interactions with Talisman would be a process of mutual pursuit of credible measures to ensure that oil operations do not support human rights violations and the civil war.
In a different context, NGOs engaged in advocacy and dialogue with the apparel industry for a code of conduct on labour standards are aware that should negotiations with industry succeed, some form of alliance or partnership may be required to ensure the establishment of a credible monitoring and certification system over the long term, although they are emphatic about the need for arrangements that do not interfere with their advocacy and campaigning roles.
d) Government agendas
Governments are among the major promoters of NGO - corporate partnerships for development. As funding for official development assistance has consistently fallen, governments are keen to find new ways to “leverage” scarce resources.
Carol Bellamy of UNICEF says that a financial argument provides a poor rationale for partnership, as it allows governments to shirk their responsibilities, and because it is based on a limited view of what the private sector can bring to a relationship (Bellamy 1999). In her view, the more principled approach is that society’s intractable social and economic problems are not solvable through fragmented approaches—that all sectors need to work together, exchanging information and sharing roles.
Government proponents of partnerships also point to the rapid increase of private investment capital flowing to (a very limited number of) developing countries at the same time as aid is declining (much of which is directed to countries who receive very little private investment).
While they do not cheer the aid decline, they contend that private sector development is the engine of the economic growth and it is economic growth that will most effectively counter poverty (CIDA 1999). NGOs have long challenged this dogma, pointing to consequences of unfettered economic growth for increased social and economic inequality and environmental deterioration. CIDA, of course, provides funding and incentives to try to increase and leverage corporate support for private sector development. Those Canadian NGOs who believe that the private sector can provide important new hope for development and poverty reduction should devote more resources to monitoring CIDA’s private sector development policy. Almost no NGOs took advantage of the opportunity to comment on CIDA’s draft private sector development policy

13

released in May 1999, yet it will set the future direction of CIDA’s support for the private sector in relation to poverty reduction (CIDA 1999).
CIDA is also encouraging the exploration of partnerships, e.g. through the provision of funds to participants in the Mesa Minera in Peru, a roundtable of mining companies and Canadian and local NGOs, initiated by the Canadian embassy. It remains to be seen if CIDA will also consider funding the multi-sector initiative to develop a code of conduct for supply chains in the apparel industry, and related projects with workers and NGOs in the south. (The UK’s aid agency provided major funding for a similar initiative.)
NGOs who believe in the potential of partnerships should also take responsibility for monitoring whether the partnerships CIDA supports are focused on the goal of poverty reduction, and push for better access to information. The lack of information about CIDA funding provided to corporations, even for partnership projects, is a major problem. What message about the poverty-reduction benefits of private sector projects should we take from the fact that CIDA continues to shield them from public scrutiny because of the rights of companies to “commercial confidentiality”? A corporate representative argued at CIDA’s recent “Development Days” that
“the barrier which exists within CIDA-private sector relations on one side and NGO-government relations on the other, must be softened. Currently, corporations go through one door; nongovernmental organizations go through another door, and they rarely meet (Cooney 1999).”
Better access to information would significantly open up the process, although perhaps not in ways that the private sector would welcome.
e) Overlapping NGO-corporate interests?
Is there any natural overlap in NGO and corporate interests in development and poverty reduction, or are NGOs responding to corporate interests? Preliminary evidence suggests very little overlap. One limited measure of Canadian corporate interest in development is CIDA’s responsive program for the private sector, CIDA INC. Company projects favoured Asia, then the Americas, then Africa. Clearly, corporate interest in “development” is not in the region of greatest need for assistance. In terms of sectors: industry, water, energy and agriculture are dominant, with regional variations—e.g. in the Americas, the mining sector received 11% of
CIDA INC support (CIDA 1998).
In contrast, NGOs have focused on the poorest countries. The North- South Institute did a rough survey showing that budgets gave priority to Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and then
Asia—the reverse of the corporate pattern (Meltzer and Van Rooy 1999, 111).
One might expect that the extent of Canadian corporate sector interest in partnerships would be related to patterns of investment in developing countries. It is larger corporations that have money to invest in programming partnerships related to their investments. However, Canadian direct investment in developing countries by large and high profile Canadian companies is relatively limited, and there appears to be little interest in partnerships on the part of most. The construction, financial services and manufacturing sectors are more important sources of
Canadian direct investment abroad than the resource sectors (Weston 1998, 60). Yet it is the mining sector that appears to have the greatest interest in partnerships, reflecting its need to

14

reduce community opposition to mining investment (Hutchinson 1998). How these overall patterns of investment relate to the poverty reduction goals of NGOs remains largely unexplored. 3.3.2 Financial relationships
NGO partnerships with corporations do not necessarily involve financial dependence, although there are relationships that are sometimes called partnerships (perhaps mistakenly) that are primarily financial. Corporate financial support for specific social partnership programs with
NGOs should be distinguished from untied corporate charitable donations, and untied corporate charitable donations should be distinguished from cause-related marketing.
Straightforward charity by corporations to international development organizations is minimal.
Less than 0.3% of Canada’s corporate donations go towards international development. A review by The North-South Institute of 46 civil society organizations working in international development concluded that businesses and foundations were their least significant source of revenue: only two received more than 1% of total revenue from foundations (Meltzer and Van
Rooy, 111). It appears that Canadian NGOs are a long way from the concern in other countries that because corporate philanthropy budgets are so large, they can compromise NGO independence. On the other hand, the data may not have caught up with the reality of current enthusiasm for financial relations with corporations.
A few Canadian NGOs have turned to sponsorships and “cause-related marketing”. The operative word in these relationships is “marketing” not philanthropy, and such relationships are not always risk free. Most NGOs would see no harm in the cause related marketing of Citizens
Bank, linking customer deposits and use of its “Shared Interest” Visa to support for groups such as Amnesty International, Inter Pares and Oxfam (see <www.citizensbank.com). However, an
NGO that has not done its homework may find itself associated with a company whose business practices are opposed to its mission, or seeming to endorse a company’s products. (A group of
Attorneys General in the US recently issued a report expressing concern about the unintended communication of false messages of product endorsement by nonprofit partners. See Charity
Village, 1999.)
Alternatively, the NGO may find that its relationship with a company has implications for the advocacy efforts of another NGO. For example, Fair TradeMark Canada has been trying to persuade one or more major coffee retailers to offer fairly trade coffee as one option for consumers. Care Canada and the Foster Parents Plan both have coffee company sponsorships. Could these relationships become a vehicle for promoting the campaign for fairly traded coffee?
A problem arises when an NGO’s fundraising efforts undermine its own programming objectives. An example is the Labour Behind the Label coalition’s campaign to force the
Woolworth Northern Group to take responsibility for abuses of homeworkers’ rights. In the midst of this campaign, it discovered that fundraising staff for one of the NGO members of the coalition had developed a fundraising initiative with Woolworth at the same time as program staff were involved in the campaign.

15

Combining a financial with a programming or strategic relationship with a company also has the potential to undermine the integrity of the latter. It is noteworthy that Greenpeace, which has entered into what some term “strange alliances” with the companies it generally attacks, will accept no corporate donations. The early failure of a partnership of Pollution Probe and
Loblaws is generally attributed to a lack of transparency about both the criteria for certification and the financial arrangement.
While the development of criteria for determining appropriate corporate sponsorships will help an NGO avoid major embarrassment, NGOs should be aware of the ambiguities of the “clean hands” approach that it implies. In fact, the debate about corporate sponsorship has many parallels with the debates about ethical investment and ethical consumption. One problem with this approach is that it can insulate the “good” companies from further investor or consumer scrutiny on issues not covered by the criteria. Yet these criteria are necessarily limited because they generally emphasize quantifiable factors for the purposes of comparing companies.6
3.3.3 Strategic alliances and programming partnerships
In Canada, service / consulting companies (with CIDA support), companies in the resource sectors (mining, oil and gas, forestry companies with image problems), and companies who are importers of consumer goods (with image problems), have shown the most interest in strategic alliances and programming partnerships.
a) NGO and service/consulting firm partnerships
Some development NGOs carry out service contracts for CIDA and have been involved in joint bids with private sector service and consulting firms for CIDA contracts. In other cases, the private sector firms may sub-contract with NGOs for the provision of components such as community consultation or education and leadership development. The 1996 CCIC workshop on partnerships identified some examples: CUSO and SNC Lavalin & Geomine; CECI and
Tecsult, Oxfam and Tecsult (CCIC 1996). Time did not permit the research needed to document the variety or extent of current service contract partnerships.
A study by Rooftops Canada highlighted many issues involved in partnerships in general, but regarding service contracts suggested that::
NGOs’ solid expertise can be readily incorporated in a service contract, in which case, the partners jointly contribute their expertise. Generally, these contracts are the result of programs funded by CIDA or IFIs [international financial institutions] and in the context of which capacity development, consultation and community work are allied with technical goals (Rooftops Canada Foundation 1998, 16), .
NGOs involved in these relationships need to be clear with the community in terms of their accountability to both government funders and private sector firms providing technical inputs.

16

b) Mining sector alliances and partnerships
Canadian NGO alliances or partnerships with companies have been particularly visible in the mining sector. Recent examples include:
Save the Children Canada in relation to Greenstone in Nicaragua for socio-economic assessment and local NGO capacity-building (since terminated);
CECI (Centre canadien d’étude et de coopération internationale) and Save the Children
Canada (SCC) in a Peruvian “Mesa Minera” of Canadian mining companies, NGOs, and recently also Peruvian mining companies, convened by the Canadian embassy, now under review;
CECI in relation to Ashanti Goldfields in Guinea for socio-economic development (CECI
1999);
Co-Development Canada in relation to Blackhawk Mining in Nicaragua and another small company in Bolivia for facilitation of community consultation processes (Radar
1999 and Tanner 1998).
Critics have raised questions about these relationships—the impact on legitimate conflictive community decision-making, perhaps divided by the potential for short term benefits from the investment, and the autonomy and ability of NGOs involved to accompany those living in poverty and most affected by the impact of the resource investment, among others. The NGOs involved generally reply that they are responding realistically to the absence of alternatives for these communities. They see this as one of the more direct and effective ways of improving the social and environmental practices of Canadian mining companies in developing country communities, supplementing the efforts in Canada of ethical investors and other advocates.
They also point out features of the relationships that they believe are overlooked by critics. (Not all features apply to every NGO or case.) They suggest that
They respond only to invitations from communities, not from companies.
They work only in partnership with a local NGO.
They do not work in situations where it is clear that the majority in the community do not want mining to proceed.
Most of their work is with indigenous communities and with the legally defined representatives of those communities, or involves local governments.
They disclose any financial relationships with the company and CIDA to the community with which they are working.
They assist in training of communities to empower them, not in the actual negotiations with the company.
They are working on a plan to build the capacity of groups in the region to network with each other and groups in the North regarding issues of mining in development.
However, there have been no public evaluations that document the extent to which these dimensions have characterized the actual experience of the communities involved. Additionally critics raise some broader contextual issues that suggest strategic concerns for ending poverty:

17

How do NGOs determine the circumstances under which they can participate in partnerships with mining companies for local community development without reinforcing the larger mining sector agenda? Companies have promoted, through the World Bank and other means, mining legislation which makes countries attractive to investors but which has often exacerbated the community problems which the partnership is set up to address. Is there any reasonable hope that NGOs can use engagement at the community level to encourage companies to recognize the shortcomings of the trade and investment rules they have helped put in place?
Should NGOs cooperate with CIDA in providing money for social spending in mining communities; is this not simply another instance of CIDA’s misguided promotion of Canada’s commercial interests abroad?
c) Codes of conduct for consumer goods
There are four organizations based in Canada or supported by Canadian NGOs which have or are developing principles or codes, and where partnerships at some level between NGOs and businesses are involved. These are: Canadian Partnership for Ethical Trading (CPET), Fair
TradeMark Canada, Forest Stewardship Council, and Rugmark. The mandates and structures of these organizations vary greatly. Our comments here relate to the issues under discussion with respect to codes of conduct in the apparel industry and the work of CPET.
Reflecting on codes of conduct, Bob Jeffcott and Lynda Yanz of the Labour Behind the Label
Coalition and the Maquila Solidarity Network have commented:
In a remarkably short period of time the debate around codes of conduct has moved from a focus on corporate social responsibility and self-regulation toward negotiations of the terms of corporate accountability, involving not only companies and their associations, but also (usually Northern) labour, religious and non-governmental organizations (Jeffcott and Yanz 1999a,1).
There are several issues of concern to both civil society participants and to critics of code initiatives (Jeffcott and Yanz 1999a and 1999b):
What is the impact of codes on local labour legislation and its enforcement? Do all voluntary initiatives support government and corporate privatization and deregulation agendas? Or can codes be used to reinforce existing legislation and encourage government enforcement?
What is the impact of codes on union organizing? Does factory-based monitoring and certification, by either local NGOs or international certification organizations, discourage worker self-organization? Or does it increase the democratic space for workers to organize, providing an additional mechanism through which to challenge company violations of the right to organize?
Can codes be structured and implemented in ways that avoid arbitrary cancellation of contracts with sub-standard firms and consequent job loss?
Who should do the external monitoring and verification of compliance? If local NGOs are involved, how are they affected by the various types of financial relationship between

18

them and companies or code organizations? How can we ensure that codes are used to increase funding for capacity building of local NGOs and labour groups?
Are codes only a northern tool, imposed on developing countries? Does the development of southern code-related initiatives indicate that codes are a useful tool in the South, or simply a capitulation to northern agendas?7
Do codes set standards that have protectionist impact on developing countries? Or can
“living wage” clauses be implemented in ways that leave their definition in the control of the workers affected?
4. Cross-cutting issues
In this paper we have reviewed three modalities or paths for NGO engagement with corporations. While some of the most contentious issues for NGOs relate to various forms of partnership, many of the issues are also pertinent to advocacy and dialogue relationships. We conclude by identifying three major clusters of issues.

4.1 Approaches to social change for poverty reduction
A central cross-cutting issue is the (often) implicit assumptions that NGOs and development activists make about social change for poverty reduction—who will (should) bring about change that improves the lives of people living in poverty, and how will they effect change to that end.
Some assume that it is people living in poverty and their social organizations who are the primary agents for ending poverty. In this context, interventions on the broad macro corporate agenda (structural adjustment etc.) and with particular corporations should serve to open political space for the poor and their allies and may be confrontational in relation to other sectors of society (who seek to protect vested interests and unequal distribution of social and economic benefits). On the other hand if one believes that change will occur as a gradual and constant process of mediation of social and economic interests to seek common ground, then one's approach (and the allies one brings to the task) to engagement with the corporate sector
(and government for that matter) is very different. The issue cuts across all the paths for engagement—civic regulation proponents do not ignore growing global inequalities and the importance of strong government regulatory frameworks. None of the modes of engagement rest on unchallengeable facts about the conditions that lead to poverty reduction. The clarification of assumptions and the exploration of the implications of the various approaches to corporate engagement are vitally important for shared learning and ultimately for strategies that build effective alliances for poverty reduction.
4.2 Due diligence
For those NGOs who choose to engage with individual corporations, due diligence with carefully researched information is essential.8 Not only is it important to undertake a corporate review, it is equally important to consider the impact of a relationship -- advocacy, dialogue or partnership
-- on other development partners: NGOs, unions, and churches There have been numerous recent cases of conflicting agendas and exclusion of significant voices:

19

The Global Alliance for Workers and Communities (Wayr 1999) is working with Nike on community development support for Asian workers at the same time as labour rights activists are campaigning against Nike;
The discussions between the Grameen Bank and Care International with Monsanto threatened to undercut RAFI’s campaign on issues of genetically modified seed and self determination; Corporate invitations to dialogue are often set up as stakeholder consultative processes.
Unions are among those often left out.9
Northern NGOs must always consider how partners in the South will be affected For example, some advocacy campaigns may result in a boycott of all products from that country, or discourage wanted investment. To prevent unwanted effects from advocacy, dialogue or partnerships, consultation is of course key—or should there be direct representation of southern groups in the decision-making bodies of northern NGO with respect to corporate engagement projects? What are the benefits of broad consultation with a range of groups as compared with an invitation for one or two southern NGOs and unions to participate directly in northerndirected negotiations and partnerships?
4.3 Transparency and Accountability
Transparency is vital in the corporate-NGO relationship, and accountability to constituents is essential for effectiveness in pursuing goals related to poverty reduction. We generally raise questions about transparency and accountability when we are suspicious or concerned about the partnership or dialogue an NGO has developed with a company. Yet questions about transparency and accountability apply equally to advocacy, and to NGOs as well as to business.
Is there sufficient transparency in some NGO advocacy campaigns about the research base on which claims are based or the numbers of members whose views are represented? In developing partnerships or launching campaigns, accountability is vital for NGO credibility.
NGOs must be clear in their claims about membership and representation of views on behalf of constituencies. 20

Appendix: Canadian corporate social responsibility organizations
The following list includes business organizations providing services to investors and others interested in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and NGOs with an ongoing mandate for research and action on CSR. It does not include the many NGOs focusing on particular corporate sectors (e.g. forestry and mining) or with only intermittent attention to corporate issues. Canadian Business for Social Responsibility
Web site: www.cbsr.bc.ca
CBSR is a not for profit organization founded in 1994 to define and promote corporate social responsibility. Its members are both small and large companies. Its corporate social responsibility guidelines are available on the web site.
Canadian Centre for Ethics & Corporate Policy
Web site: www.ethicscentre.com
The Centre is a charitable, registered independent ethics centre, comprised of corporations and individuals dedicated to developing and nurturing an ethical corporate culture. It publishes
Management Ethics bi-monthly.
Centre for Innovation in Corporate Responsibility
Web site: www.cicr.net
CICR aims to assist Canadian businesses working in developing countries by providing a
“knowledge-brokering” centre of expertise for innovation in corporate responsibility.
Canadian Centre for Business and the Community
Web site: www2.conferenceboard.ca/ccbc
The CCBC, a program of the Conference Board of Canada, has undertaken a “Corporate Social
Responsibility Initiative” supported by Human Resources Development Canada. It includes a
“Best Practices Benchmarks Group” of 22 companies.
Ethics in Action
Web site: www.ethicsinaction.com
The Ethics in Action award recognizes leadership in corporate social responsibility. It was created in Vancouver in 1994 though a partnership between the VanCity Savings Credit Union and The Workplace Ministry Society. It now has additional sponsors and expanded in 1999 to
Ontario.
EthicScan Canada
Web site: www.CSRindicators.com
EthicScan is a private company which provides resources and managerial advice on ethically responsible corporate behaviour. It undertakes research on the social and environmental performance of Canadian companies and publishes The Corporate Ethics Monitor.
Michael Jantzi Research Associates Inc. (MJRA)
E-mail: mjra@web.net
MJRA is a private company which produces research on the ethical performance of Canadian companies. Its clients include institutional investors in Canada and the U.S. who incorporate social and environmental factors into their investment decisions. MJRA’s corporate profiles and
Canadian Social Investment Database may also be accessed by individuals and organizations.

21

The North-South Institute
Web site: www.nsi-ins.ca
The NSI is an independent non-governmental research institute focussing on international development. One of its program areas concerns the examination of global markets and social responsibility. Social Investment Organization
Web site: www.web.net/~sio
The SIO is a national non-profit organization with a mandate to advance a just and sustainable society in Canada and internationally through the development of socially responsible investment and corporate social responsibility. It is Canada’s largest socially responsible investment clearinghouse.
Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility
Web site: www.web.net/~tccr
The Taskforce is a national ecumenical coalition of the major churches in Canada. As a research-action program, the Taskforce assists member organizations in promoting and implementing their policies on the social and environmental responsibility of Canadian-based corporations and financial institutions.
Transparency International - Canada
Web site: www.transparency.yorku.ca
TI-Canada is a voluntary not-for-profit organization affiliated with more than 70 other national chapters across the world. TI-Canada’s purpose is to inform the business community, the government and the general public of the effects of corruption in the international marketplace, and to provide support and resources for public and private sector initiatives to prevent corrupt business practices.

22

ENDNOTES
1

A recent paper by Charles Abugre exposes the limits of the notion of partnership as it has become commonly used by development practioners. He endorses a definition by Rober Picciotto of partnership as “a means to an end—a collaborative relationship towards mutually agreed objectives involving shared responsibility for outcomes, distinct accountabilities and reciprocal obligations,” and goes on to argue that the various NGO-corporate-government relationships in the new development agenda are not really governed by a partnership concept ( Abugre 1999,6).
The paper is available on CIDA’s web site or on CCIC’s site (www.web.net/ccic-ccci).
2

A helpful method for clarifying such ethical issues has been suggested by Roger Hutchinson, based on studies of different perspectives among church activists on issues such as the advantages and disadvantages of integration into or dissociation from the present international economic system (Hutchinson and Pratt 1988).
3

The North-South Institute has estimated that only about 5% of Canadian organizations working on development issues engage in advocacy (Van Rooy 1999b,15), but the figure is questioned by others familiar with current campaigns. A CCIC study (see CCIC 1997) provides many examples of NGO policy work related to advocacy, both by individual NGOs and through coalitions.

4

The Ethical Trading Initiative is a collaborative approach to involving companies, unions and NGOs in learning how best to make ethical trading codes work. For information see www.ethicaltrade.org.

5

Among the major companies positioning itself as an ethical leader is Canada’s Placer Dome, through its participation in the World Bank’s Business Partners for Development and other “intermediary” organizations, presentations in business-NGO forums such as the Fund for Peace, leadership within mining sector organizations such as the International Council on Metals and the Environment, and partnerships with NGOs for community development at mine locations. Placer Dome’s James Cooney endorses a “new vision of collaboration, even partnership”. A case study of Placer Dome would nicely illustrate all of these factors: environmental cost, reputation, the cost of community opposition, corporate managers who present themselves as agents of change within the company, and the possibility (discounted by many NGOs) that the company is really embracing a new ethic. 6

The CCIC states in its “Corporate Partnership and Sponsorship Policy” (December 1998), that it will determine appropriate partners based on the application of qualitative criteria and exclusionary screens. To its credit, the CCIC states that in considering partnerships or sponsorships it seeks to “bring to the attention of private sector partners,
CCIC’s analysis of global issues and public policy priorities.”
7

Among examples of southern code of conduct initiatives are: IBASE’s work on social auditing in Brazil (Sucupira
n.d.), a maquila code of ethics developed in Nicaragua by MEC, the Movement of Working and Unemployed
Women, “Maria Elena Cuadra”; a monitoring pilot project with Liz Claiborne in Guatemala by COVERCO
(Commission for the Verification of Corporate Codes of Conduct”; CEDAL’s work in Peru on codes of conduct in the mining sector; Abrinq’s development of a code and label to address the issue of child labour in Brazil (dos
Santos 1998); and the work of CACTUS in Colombia on codes in the cut flower sector.
8

Possible areas include: a corporate profile regarding environmental and social impact, and corporate governance (e.g. disclosure practices); information about the company’s relationship to national and international governmental programs and agendas: e.g. partnerships with CIDA and the World Bank.; information about the company’s memberships in business and intermediary organizations and the role of those associations.

23

9

For example, a Canadian corporation in South Africa invited a Canadian NGO to a consultation about developing a partnership for a housing project and rescinded the invitation when the NGO asked to bring the local union partner with which it was already collaborating on related projects. In Peru, the multi-sector roundtable concerned with issues of community and social impact includes Canadian mining companies, two Canadian NGOs, local NGOs, but no trade union representation.

Bibliography
24

Abugre, Charles (ISODEC, Ghana). 1999. “Partners, Collaborators or Patron-Clients: Defining
Relationships in the Aid Industry, A Survey of the Issues.” Background document prepared for
Canadian Partnership Branch. Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency
Aldaba, Fernando T. 1999. “The Future of Philippine NGOs: No Escape from the Market (In a
World with Declining Aid).” Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public
Affairs, Ateneo de Manila University
Alliance for Environmental Innovation. 1999. Catalyzing Environmnental Results: Lessons in
Advocacy Organization-Business Partnerships. A Report Sponsored by the J.M. Kaplan Fund
Andreasen, Alan R. 1996. “Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Partner.” Harvard Business
Review, November-December
Bellamy, Carol. 1999. “Public, Private and Civil Society: Statement of UNICEF Executive
Director Carol Bellamy to Harvard International Development Conference on ‘Sharing
Responsibilities: Public, Private & Civil Society.’” 16 April, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Bendell,Jem. 1997. “Strange Bedfellows: Business and Environmental Groups.” Business and
Society Review, 98: 40-44
Bendell, Jem. 1998. “Citizens Cane? Relations Between Business and Civil Society.” Paper presented at ISTR 3rd International Conference. Geneva, July 8-11. At http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/business-ngo-relations Bendell, Jem. 1999. “Beyond the Self-Regulation of Environmental Management: Some
Thoughts on the Growing Importance of Business-NGO Relations.” Presentation to a conference at Hannover, June. At http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/business-ngo-relations
BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development) and the Prince of Wales Business Leaders
Forum. 1999. “NGO Futures—Partnership with the Private Sector.” Minutes of a meeting,
London, UK, June 30.
Bornstein, David. 1998. “Changing the World on a Shoestring.” The Atlantic Monthly, 281(1): 3439
Brem, Maxwell. 1999. “Mapping Corporate Citizenship: A Survey of Global, National, and Local
Initiatives.” In Promoting Corporate Citizenship: Opportunities for Business and Civil Society
Engagement. Washington, D.C.: CIVICUS
Broad Robin and Cavanagh, John. 1999, “ The Corporate Accountability Movement: Lessons and Opportunities, “ The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 23:2, Fall
Brown, Roland et al. 1998. “Private Good = Public Gain?” Insights, 28 (December). At www.id21.org “Business-NGO Relations and Responsible Enterprise.” A practitioner and researcher online community on business-NGO relations. At http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/business-ngorelations

25

Canada. DFAIT (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). 1999. “Canada
Announces Support to Sudan Peace Process.’ News Release No. 232, October 26.
Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. “Researching Prospective Business Partners.” Intersector,
3(4). At www.ccp.ca
CCIC (Canadian Council for International Cooperation). 1997. “Canadian International
Cooperation NGOs and Policy”. Ottawa. At http://fly.web.net/ccic/devpolicy.htm
CCIC (Canadian Council for International Cooperation). 1996. “Common Interests: Exploring
Opportunities for NGO-Private Sector Collaboration.” Report of Seminar, May 23. Ottawa:
CCIC. At < http://fly.web.net/ccic/volsector.htm>
CCIC (Canadian Council for International Cooperation). 1998. “Corporate Partnership and
Sponsorship Policy.” Ottawa: CCIC. At < http://fly.web.net/ccic/devpolicy.htm>
CCIC. (Canadian Council for International Cooperation). 1999a. “A Conceptual Framework for the CCIC Learning Circle on “NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a Global Agenda to
End Poverty.” Ottawa: CCIC . At < http://fly.web.net/ccic/devpolicy.htm>
CCIC (Canadian Council for International Cooperation). 1999b. “A Call to End Global Poverty:
Renewing Canadian Aid Policy and Practice.” A Policy Background Paper. Ottawa: CCIC. At
<http://fly.web.net/ccic/devpolicy,htm>
CCIC (Canadian Council for International Cooperation). 1999c. “A (Draft) Concept Paper for a
CCIC Learning Circle on ‘NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a Global Agenda to End
Poverty.” Ottawa: CCIC
CECI (Centre canadien d’étude et de coopération internationale). 1999. “CCIC Learning Circle:
NGO Engagement with the Private Sector.” [Notes provided to author.]
CEPAA (Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency). 1999. “Comments and
Corrections Regarding the SA8000 System: A Response to the June 1999 LARIC report on
SA8000.” At www.cepaa.org
Charity Village. 1997. “Foster Parents Plan and The Second Cup Aid Kids in Coffee-Growing
Countries.” Canadian FundRaiser, July 16. At www.charityvillage.com
Charity Village. 1999. “What’s In a Name, When It Belongs to a Nonprofit?” Canadian
FundRaiser, May 27. At www.charityvillage.com

CICR (Centre for Innovation in Corporate Responsibility). 1999. “Engaging Stakeholders and
Business-NGO Partnerships: Maximizing an Increasingly Important Source of Value: Summary of Results.” November 16, Ottawa: CICR
CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). 1996. “Canadian Voluntary Organizations and CIDA: Framework for a Renewed Relationship.” Ottawa: CIDA

26

CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency).1998. “Private Sector Development in
Developing Countries, Background Document.” Draft, October 2, Policy Branch, Table 2.
Ottawa: CIDA
CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). 1999. “CIDA’s Policy for Private Sector
Development in Developing Countries.” Draft, March 29. Ottawa: CIDA
Cooney, James. 1996. “Placer Dome's Las Cristinas Project in Venezuela.” Presentation to the
United Nations Division for Environmental Management and Social Development, Symposium on Corporations, Communities and Sustainable Social Development in the Minerals Sector,
Panel on Canadian Corporations in the Americas, May 10, New York City, New York
Cooney, James. 1999. “Corporations and Civil Society: Conflict or Co-operation in International
Development.” Paper presented to the CIDA International Cooperation Days, November 17,
Ottawa
Corporate Watch. n.d. “Greenwash Award of the Month: World Business Council on Sustainable
Development.” Accessed November 8, 1999 at www.igc.org/trac/greenwash/wbcsd.html
Coumans, Catherine. 1999a. “Brief Notes in Response to the Paper: ‘Socially Responsible
Mining: More Than Just a Firm Handshake, Presented by Jim Radar of Co-Dev Canada to the
Canadian Institute of Mining.’”
Coumans, Catherine. 1999b. “Partnerships between Canadian NGOs and Corporations: A Case
Study.” Notes for a workshop of the Asia-Pacific Working Group and CIDA, “Framework for
Dialogue, Social Partnerships: Do They Serve the Poor?” February 23, Ottawa
Council of Canadians. [1999] The MAI Inquiry: Confronting Globalization & Reclaiming
Democracy. [Ottawa]: The Council of Canadians
Dees, J. Gregory. 1998. “Enterprising Nonprofits.” Harvard Business Review, January-February dos Santos, Benedito. 1998. “Labelling Child Labor Products: A Study of Strategies Developed by the Abrinq Foundation.” Paper prepared for the Steelworkers Humanity Fund, Toronto
Draimin, Tim and Smillie, Ian. 1999. Strengthening Civil Society: The Role of Southern
Foundations. Discussion draft, April. The Synergos Institute.

Edwards, Michael, David Hulme and Tina Wallace. 1999. “NGOs in a Global Future: Marrying
Local Delivery to Worldwide Leverage.” Conference Background Paper, NGOs in a Global
Future Conference, 10-13 January, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham.
Elkington, John.1998. Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers
Flynn, Julia et al. 1996. “Green Warrior in Gray Flannel: Why Business Listens to Activist
Jeremy Leggett.” Business Week, May 6, 96-97

27

Fowler, A. 1999. “NGDOs as a Moment in History: Beyond Aid to Civic Entrepreneurship.”
Paper presented to the “NGOs in a Global Future” Conference, 10-13 January, School of Public
Policy, University of Birmingham.
Fund for Peace. 1999. “The Fund for Peace Foreign Policy Roundtable: Report on a Dialogue
Between Representatives of the Human Rights and Corporate Communities.” Summary of 1998
Activities, January, 1999. Washington: The Fund for Peace
Heap, Simon. 1998. NGOs and the Private Sector: Potential for Partnerships? Occasional
Papers Series Number 27. Oxford, UK: INTRAC (The International NGO Training and Research
Centre)
Hibler, Michelle and Rowena Beamish, eds. 1998. Canadian Development Report 1998:
Canadian Corporations and Social Responsibility. Ottawa: The North-south Institute
Hutchinson, Moira. 1996. “The Promotion of Active Shareholdership for Corporate Social
Responsibility in Canada.” Michael Jantzi Research Associates for the Canadian Friends
Service Committee: Toronto
Hutchinson, Moira. 1998. “Beyond Best Practice: The Mining Sector.” In Canadian Development
Report 1998: Canadian Corporations and Social Responsibility, ed. Michelle Hibler and Rowena
Beamish. Ottawa: The North-South Institute
Hutchinson, Roger and Cranford Pratt, eds. 1988. Christian Faith and Economic Justice:
Towards a Canadian Perspective. Burlington, Ontario: Trinity Press
Inter Pares. 1999. “The Dilemmas of ‘Social Partnership.’” Inter Pares Bulletin, 22(3)
INTRAC. 1998. “Workshop Report: NGOs and the Private Sector, 30 November - 1 December
1998 The Hague, The Netherlands” At www.intrac.org
INTRAC. 1999. “NGOs and the Private Sector: The New Phase.” ONTRAC, Newsletter of the
International NGO Training and Research Centre, 13 (September). At www.intrac.org
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). 1999. “Monsanto
Pledges It Won’t Commercialise Terminator Technology.” Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest,
3(40). At www.ictsd.org/html/newsdigest.htm
JCIE (Japan Center for International Exchange). 1999. “Corporate-NGO Partnership in Asia
Pacific: Case Studies of Evolving Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy (1997-99).” [Description of project and list of case studies and researchers.] At www.jcie.or.jp/civilnet
Jeffcott, Bob and Lynda Yanz. 1999a. “Codes of Conduct: From Corporate Responsibility to
Social Accountability.” Toronto: Maquila Solidarity Network
Jeffcott, Bob and Lynda Yanz. 1999b. “Voluntary Codes of Conduct: Do They Strengthen or
Undermine Government Regulation and Worker Organizing?” Draft, October 18. Toronto:
Maquila Solidarity Network

28

Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press
LIDC (Labour International Development Committee). 1999. “Comments on CIDA’s Draft Policy for Private Sector Development.” Toronto: Steelworkers Humanity Fund
Lake, Rob. 1999. “Governing Capitalism for International Development: Can NGOs and
Financial Institutions Work Together for the Poor?” Paper presented at the “NGOs in a Global
Future” Conference, Birmingham, January 11-13. London: Tradecraft Exchange
LARIC (Labour Rights in China). 1999. “No Illusions: Against the Global Cosmetic SA8000.”
Hong Kong: Asia Monitor Resource Center
Levy, Marcelo. 1998. “The Forest Stewardship Council’s Certification Program: Background
Paper.” Prepared for the Steelworkers Humanity Fund. Toronto
Loizides, Stelios. 1998. “Globalizing Ethics & Business Codes of Conduct Conference Report,
Toronto, May 26, 1998.” Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada
Lucas, C. Payne. 1996. “Profit and Non-profit: A New African Business Partnership.” Vital
Speeches, 62(20), 617
McClintock, Norah. 1996. “Why You Need a Sponsorship Policy and How to Get One.” Front &
Centre (Canadian Centre for Philanthropy), 3 (5) 12-13. At www.ccp.ca
Meltzer, Judy and Alison Van Rooy. 1999. “Civil Society Organizations and Funding in Canada.”
In Civil Society and Global Change, ed. Alison Van Rooy, 109-118. Ottawa: The North-South
InstituteMurphy, David. 1998. “Partnership for Sustainable Development: Business-NGO
Relations in a Changing World.” Paper prepared for the UNCTAD Summit Conference,
“Partners for Development,” November 9-12, Lyon. At http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/businessngo-relations
Nelson, Jane. 1996. Business as Partners in Development: Creating Wealth for Countries,
Companies and Communities. UK: The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, in collaboration with The World Bank and The United Nations Development Program. At www.pwblf.org Partnerships for Health Promotion. n.d. “Prospectus for a Programme of The Prince of Wales
Business Leaders Forum (PWBLF) with the Advice of a Steering Group of the World Health
Organisation (WHO)”. At www.pwblf.org/php
Peters, Glen.1999. Waltzing With the Raptors: A Practical Roadmap to Protecting Your
Company’s Reputation. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Pinney, Christopher. 1999. “Business and Civil Society Organizations: Toward a New
Partnership.” In Promoting Corporate Citizenship: Opportunities for Business and Civil Society
Engagement. Washington, D.C.: CIVICUS
Pratt, Renate. 1994. “The Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility.” In
Coalitions for Justice, ed. Christopher Lind and Joe Mihevic. Ottawa: Novalis

29

Pratt, Renate. 1997. In Good Faith: Canadian Churches Against Apartheid. Waterloo, Ontario:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press
PWBLF (Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum). n.d. Creating the Enabling Environment for
Public-Private Partnerships and Global Corporate Citizenship. Executive Summary. London:
PWBLF. At www.pwblf.org
PWBLF (Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum). 1999a. Forum Briefing, Spring. At www.pwblf.org PWBLF (Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum). 1999b. “Responsible Business in the
Global Economy.” In The Financial Times Guide, June
PWBLF (Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum). 1999c. 98/99 Review, July. At www.pwblf.org Radar, James T. 1999. “Socially Responsible Mining: More Than Just a Firm Handshake.”
Vancouver: CoDevelopment Canada
RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International). 1999. “Monsanto—Handled with CARE?
...Or, CARE—Handled by Monsanto?” News Release, 3/9/1999. At www.rafi.org
Reis, Thomas K. and Stephanie J. Clohesy. 1999. “Unleashing New Resources and
Entrepreneurship for the Common Good: A Scan, Synthesis and Scenario for Action.” Mattle
Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. At www.wkkf.org
Resor, Jamie and Douglas Salloum. 1999. “Business and the Battle for the Forest: A Treasury of Trees.” Impact, 3 (3), 26-29
Rooftops Canada Foundation. 1998. “Completing the Triangle: Successful Partnership for
Housing Exports.” Toronto: Rooftops Canada Foundation

Roseman, Ellen. 1999. “Shoppers Recruited in Labour Code Struggle.” The Toronto Star,
December 22, E2
Ryan, Tim. 1999. “Holding Talisman Accountable.” The Globe and Mail, November 23, A21
Ryan, William P. 1999. “The New Landscape for Nonprofits.” Harvard Business Review,
January-February
Saxby, John . 1999. “Partnership in Question.” Paper prepared for discussion at CIDA
International Cooperation Days, November 16/17. Ottawa: CIDA
Smillie, Ian. 1999. “International Development and Civil Society.” In Civil Society and Global
Change, ed. Alison Van Rooy, 19-28. Ottawa: The North-South Institute

30

Sponsorship Consultants. n.d. “The Sponsorship Report: How Big is the Canadian Sponsorship
Pie?” At www.sponsorship.ca
Sucupira, João Antonio. n.d.. “Business Ethics and the Social Audit.” Brazil: IBASE
Tanner, Adrienne. 1998. “Exploration Firms Bulldozing Old Ways: Tragedies Underline Need for
Sustainable Development.” National Post, November 2, Financial Post section, C12
TCCR (Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility). 1975-1997. Annual Report.
Toronto
Tennyson, Ros. n.d. Managing Partnerships: Tools for Mobilising the Public Sector, Business and Civil Society as Partners in Development. London: Prince of Wales Business Leaders
Forum. At www.pwblf.org
Thomas, Kevin. 1999. “The Power and Limits of Consumer Action.” Paper prepared for the
Moderator’s Consultation on Faith and the Economy. At www.faith-and-the-economy.org and in Moira Hutchinson, ed., Corporate Responsibility, Toronto: United Church of Canada
(Moderator’s Consultation)
Thomson, Bob. 1998. “Notes for a Learning Circle Presentation on Fair TradeMark Canada.”
Paper prepared for the Steelworkers Humanity Fund.” Toronto
Tomlinson, Brian. 1998. “Canadian International Cooperation NGOs: Trends in the 1990s.”
Ottawa: Canadian Council for International Cooperation
UNICEF. 1996. Mobilizing Corporations to Eradicate Child Labour in Brazil: A Study of
Strategies Developed by the Abrinq Foundation for Children’s Rights. S o Paulo: UNICEF
United Kingdom. Department for International Development. 1998. Business Partnerships,
Volume One: Approach to Business Partnerships, and Business Partnerships: Volume Two:
Technical Annexes. London, UK: DFID

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 1999. World Investment Report 1999:
Foreign Direct Investment and the Challenge of Development. New York and Geneva: United
Nations
Van Rooy, Alison. 1999a. “Changing Liaisons: Hot Topics in Canadian NGOs' Relationships with CIDA, the Private Sector, Each Other, and their Southern Counterparts.” A Background paper prepared for CIDA/Canadian Partnership Branch. Ottawa. The North South Institute. Van
Rooy, Alison. 1999b. “Why Civil Society?”. In Civil Society and Global Change, ed. Alison Van
Rooy, 8-18. Ottawa: The North-South Institute
Venables, Hugh. 1997. “Bad Cops & Dolphins: A Report of a Seminar—NGOs Engaging with the Private Sector, Taking Stock of our Experience, Evolving our Strategy.” London: ActionAid
Weston, Ann. 1998. “Ethics in the Marketplace, The Manufacturing Sector.” In Canadian
Development Report 1998: Canadian Corporations and Social Responsibility, ed. Michelle
Hibler and Rowena Beamish. Ottawa: The North-South Institute

31

Weyr, Teddie. 1999. “Nike, Mattel Join Alliance to Help Young Factory Workers.” Associated
Press, April 7. See also www.theglobal alliance.com
World Bank. 1999. “Business Partners for Development.” At http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/bpd
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 1998. Corporate Social Responsibility: A
Dialogue on Dilemmas, Challenges, Risks and Opportunities. The Netherlands, September 6-8.
At www.wbcsd.ch
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. n.d. “Global Mining Initiative.”
Wright, John (Angus Reid Group). 1998. “Corporate Responsibility.” Presentation on January
20, for “Imagine, A New Spirit of Community.” Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy
Zadek, Simon. 1999. “Can Corporations Be Civil?” [Part of a book in preparation; information is available from <zadek@compuserve.com>]
Zadek, Simon. n.d. “Civil Partnerships for Social Cohesion- An Overview.” UK: New Economics
Foundation
Zimmerman, Brenda and Raymond Dart. 1998. Charities Doing Commercial Ventures: Societal and Organizational Implications. Trillium Foundation and Canadian Policy Research Networks
Inc.

32