In August, Melbourne’s The Age newspaper reported that Greenpeace was experiencing something of a cost blow out.
On Friday, Crikey was quoting an anonymous tipster suggesting financial problems at the multi-national, text follows below.
I find much of the information from the ‘anonymous tipsters’ a bit far fetched.
Crikey also published a response from Greenpeace denying they are on the verge of bankruptcy, text follows below.
It is interesting that the rumours are circulating. It is interesing that the media is taking an interest in the organisation. Once Greenpeace managed to focus the media exclusively on its campaigns.
Text from Crikey’s anonymous tipster:
A friend of mine who is a contractor at Greenpeace Australia Pacific is about to get the flick because they have suddenly realised that they are on the verge of bankruptcy. After taking a high risk strategy of running big deficits in the hope of a massive fundraising increase, they have suddenly panicked. Their three months reserve policy (see their financial report on their website) is gone, along with the reserves. To save the organisation, they have stopped hiring people for empty positions (I hear there are quite a few) and told all contractors that when their term contracts expire, they are out (this applies to about 20% of staff and their contracts generally expire by the end of the year). They have pretty much stopped any campaigning work for the rest of the year to save cash.
The CEO has left this disaster a couple of months ago (without even knowing it was coming) and has just taken up a position as CEO of the RSPCA in Australia. In the two weeks since this crisis began, one member of senior management has quit and the other 3 are under pressure to go. The new CEO starts in a few weeks.
The reason for this huge deficit – fund raising out of control. Fund raising expenses this year are around 50% of total organisation expenditure (up from 36% last year and around 30% in previous years).
For the next few months they are going to desperately try to find a few million to save from their annual budget. At the end of their review some full time staff are probably going to get the flick as well. Staff are close to starting a revolution.
The craziest thing about this is that fund raising income is above budget for the year and expenditure is below budget (because Greenpeace hardly does any campaigning any more). The whole disaster is because of financial incompetence by management.
On a side note – the board clearly didn’t see this coming either. Not quite sure what that bunch of pleasure cruisers are up to.
Crikey also published a response from Sonia Zavesky, Greenpeace communications manager:
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is not on the verge of bankruptcy. 3.8 million people worldwide give money to Greenpeace – in Australia Pacific we receive regular monthly donations of $1 million per month.
This year we will have more money donated to our work than ever before, and as our audited financial statements show, we maintain appropriate reserves. In line with our 5 year strategic fundraising plan, our investment in fundraising for the 04/05 tax year is 32% of turnover. This is annual planning and budget time and as we do every year we are looking at what campaigning work needs to be done and what staffing levels and operating budgets are required. As is the practise in most organisations, contract staff are brought in to cover busy periods, holiday cover etc. At the end of each contract period a decision is made on whether that contract needs to be extended. So while we can understand that some contract staff may find this difficult, it is simply wrong to say that all contractors are out, or that we are on shaky financial ground.
The simple truth is, that when your remit is to save the planet from environmental devastation, it’s hard to cut work. But our campaigning needs are changing, our methods of communicating are changing and we would be irresponsible managers if we did not adjust our structure and staffing levels accordingly.
As your article mentions, one senior manager has recently resigned: that is me. After 2.5 years working for an organisation I truly love, I have had to concede that being a sole parent and working for a global outfit that campaigns 24/7 around the globe, often in rapid response mode is no longer viable for me.
Greenpeace is the largest independent global environment organisation. We do not accept any funding from governments or business. We rely on donations from individuals who care about the planet to fund our work. We take our responsibility to our supporters very seriously, even if that means taking some measures that are unpopular with some individuals.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Financial statements are available; http://www.greenpeace.org.au/aboutus/pdfs/Aust_financial_statements.pdf
They do say that fundraising costs increased to 31% of total proceeds of fund raising, and that campaign spending in Australia was 57% of spending.
By this report they are holding up OK.
When you look at their accounts, what do you get for your $13.5M?
*leading the growing debate on climate change, controlling gas emissions & Kyoto protocol
*exposing illegal logging in PNG
*supporting govts in ratifying UN Stockholm Convention on toxic substances
*working to get support from Aust govt for renewable energy sector and increased mandatory renewable energy target
*exposing threats to marine life
By contrast Bill and Melinda Gates gave $US258M to Malarial R&D this year alone, not to mention the 10’s of millions given to TB/HIV R&D.
Greenpeace arent really interested in human life at all, they only support non-human life.
They are anti people.
So you support illegal logging in PNG, toxic substances, and exterminating marine life?
No of course I dont and it was improper of you to suggest that I do.
Illegal logging is a matter of law and order however Malaria, TB and HIV are matters of life and death to many – PNG has its fair share of disease and drug resistant and multi drug resistant TB is rife along with HIV.
Currently world wide 3 million die each year of TB – and it’s an easily preventable disease. All it takes is commitment and political will.
I see GreenPeace is dependant on donations from others whilst the Gates spend their own money.
I support “illegal logging” all over the world because it is usually done by the original inhabitants, and in a small scale, sustainable manner. It is done without permit because it is their as-of-right use of their property.
The “legal logging” is usually done by assorted Generals and their cronies who have been given access to the forests of traditional owners by which ever rapacious thugs happen to have the seat of government at the time. They can easily afford the baksheesh required for all forms of certification, including environmental certification. And it is invariably carried out on such a massive scale that restoration of similar forest is impossible. So spare me the high moralistic platitudes.
Well Rog it what’s you wrote. Seemed like a gratuitous comment to me. “They’re anti people”
Seems to me that Greenpeace members decide what their campaigns are about. Issues seem reasonable enough. Most will have some effects on world human populations.
If the Gate’s want to feel better by returning the vast amounts they’re reaped from their business dominance well that’s all very good of them. I wish I had $100Ms to give away too. In any case I applaud their efforts and their humanity – but is this a competition for who is holier than thou – who has the highest of the moral high ground.
And it would be a pity to save all those lives from disease and then lose them to drought and pestilence.
Yes – the “illegal logging” in Oceania is unlikely to benefit the indigeneous populations which the resources are annexed from – often in a fairly dodgy manner. That is what the argument is about.
At this point in the kindly discursive discussion style of the above I should say something bad about the Australian timber industry for ginger effect – but I won’t.