Revenue tactics, ethical concerns and credibility of non-profit websites.
...ment and support a switch to sustainable, organic agriculture. · End the nuclear age. Since we first formed in 1971, Greenpeace has worked to stop all phases of nuclear production and use, and we continue today to try to end the nuclear lifecycle once and for all. Greenpeace is working for an end to all nuclear weapons production, modernization and deployment, as well as an agreement on a timeline to achieve a nuclear-free future.” Greenpeace has a central “donate” button on every page of the web site. It’s located above the fold, accented in bright yellow. Clicking this button brings up several ways in which a visitor can contribute to the campaign. The choices include becoming a part of “Frontline” which is a monthly giving program, making a single donation, giving a gift membership or a gift in honor or memoriam, contributing to the Greenpeace legal fund, or showing support by donating stock. There are titles which read “Stand up for the Earth – Support Greenpeace today!” The addition of images of people standing together in solidarity to save our planet encourage the visitor to evaluate their sense of what is important and join the fight. Focusing on cognitive dissonance theory, specifically Steele’s 1988 self-affirmation theory, I will examine Steele’s theory in practice as used on the GreenpeaceUSA site. “Cognitive dissonance theory is concerned with the relations among cognitive elements (also called cognitions). An element is any belief, opinion, attitude or piece of knowledge about anything –about other person, objects, issues, oneself, and so on.” The original notion from Festinger (1957) suggested that dissonance arises from psychological inconsistency between linked cognitions. However, it has been modified extensively in subsequent research . In other words, dissonance occurs when you have a state of inconsistency that makes you uncomfortable. When dissonance occurs, it is human nature to want to lessen it. There are several theories discussing the means of reducing dissonance. Self-affirmation theory is just one of many. Steele’s self-affirmation theory centers on how people lessen dissonance by maintaining self-integrity. His study discovered that people positively assessed their choices when they were validated by outside sources. Steele suggests that the importance of maintaining self-integrity is really the driving force of dissonance. People want to see themselves as “‘ adaptively and morally adequate, that is, as competent, good, coherent, unitary, stable, capable of free choice, capable of controlling important outcomes, and so on.’“ An underlying component to Steele’s self-affirmation theory is that people appear “…unmoved by induced compliance inconsistencies so long as they were able to affirm their self-integrity in other ways.” Basically, all we want is to maintain the illusion that we’re exercising free choice, yet at the same time, we want validation from outside sources. Greenpeace does just this by reassuring the donating visitor that by giving money, you’ll help to continue winning global campaigns to safeguard our environment for future generations. Greenpeace has a statement on their site that reads: “Greenpeace does not solicit donations from government or corporations. Our 250,000 members in the United States and 2.5 million members worldwide form the backbone of our organization.” I thought the word “solicit” was a strange choice, especially since the organization is very anti-corporation/anti-government. So I looked up the definition in Webster’s Dictionary. Solicit is defined as a verb meaning to seek to obtain; request; to address entreaties to; petition. Does this mean that Greenpeace does not actively seek funding from large corporations or government agencies but, if presented with such a contribution, would accept? Unable to obtain the answer to this question from the GreenpeaceUSA website, I used their “contact us” link to send an e-mail. As of June 8, 2004 I have still not received an answer from them. I was curious to read what other Greenpeace websites had posted with regard to their funding. I found that on the majority of affiliated sites (Australia, Canada, Italy, etc.) the word “solicit” is also used. The only diversion to this was the greenpeace.org web site, which uses the word “accepts” within the same phrase. Don d’Cruz’s article on nongovernmental organizations brings up an interesting ethical consideration. Although “green” groups constantly invoke anti-corporate rhetoric to endear them to their support base and to some sections of the media, their anti-corporate grandstanding “…often melts away when it comes to receiving money from business.” He supports this by explaining that it is become more and more difficult for environmental groups to raise money from new supporters. Several years ago, Greenpeace USA collapsed financially, requiring them to engage in some significant corporate downsizing, including a bailout by Greenpeace International. Another factor in the drive for corporate cash according to d’Cruz is that, after the better part of a decade attacking corporations, these same corporations are ready to pay environmentalists either to go away or at least curb their protests. Why would a corporation do this? To protect their reputations from attack by the environmental groups, having the ‘seal of approval’ of a major ‘green’ group greatly reduces this risk. A few years ago, Greenpeace International called in outside consultants to conduct a brand valuation exercise. This was done with a view to licensing agreements for the use of Greenpeace’s brand. Although these plans were shelved, franchises such as Greenpeace Brazil have already engaged in the licensing of some 500 products with the Greenpeace brand name. D’Cruz suggests that the days of refusals to take corporate money are probably coming to an end. However, I have not found any evidence involving Greenpeace that supports d’Cruz’s broad, sweeping statements. I was unable to affirm that Greenpeace accepts either government or corporate donations. Credibility is defined as the extent to which a site readily provides information that enables users to make an informed judgment about its value. The first question I asked when analyzing the GreenpeaceUSA web site was does this site provide information about its factual sources? I was discouraged to discover that a majority of the hyper-links simply brought up another article written by a Greenpeace journalist. There were a few outside links that would take the visitor to websites with similar intent such as www.dontbuyexxonmobil.org. The majority of time spent browsing the GreenpeaceUSA site was limited to the content and articles written exclusively for their own environmental campaigns. There is complete contact information listed in the “contact us” link including the physical addresses and phone n...