There are many methods, most financial, to measure the success of companies in meeting goals. But the question becomes a lot harder at Harvard Business School when MBAs are challenged to measure the efforts of environmental organizations like Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly the World Wildlife Fund).
Greenpeace's goal is "to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity" and WWF's is "to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature."
Has the world become better off environmentally since these organizations were formed? Have they created value in other ways?
"The challenge for a business student is how to put a quantifiable measure on whether these organizations are successful in reaching their goals," says Harvard Business School professor Ramon Casadesus-Masanell.
HBS Working Knowledge asked Casadesus-Masanell and Jordan Mitchell, a freelance case writer based in Barcelona, to to discuss the background of these cases and how his MBA students react to them.
Sarah Jane Gilbert: Your research focused on two prominent environmental organizations, Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). What do these two groups have in common, and how are they different?
Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Jordan Mitchell: The main affinity between Greenpeace and WWF is that both are trying to promote a "public good," which is the improvement of the natural environment. Public goods are those that are non-excludable and non-rival. No one can stop anyone from benefiting from a public good such as cleaner air or uncontaminated water.
By looking back at the history of how both organizations came to be, we can highlight some key similarities and differences.
Greenpeace was born in Canada out of an initiative to stop U.S. nuclear testing in Alaska in the early 1970s. The idea was to campaign for peace using an ecological platform; that is, nuclear tests are not only bad for warfare and human death, but testing does irreparable damage to species and landmass. From 1971 to 1974, Greenpeace's main push was on nuclear disarmament. Many early Greenpeace members were journalists and knew how to get across a compelling story. They used the media as their weapon against powerful governments in an attempt to drive policy changes. The Greenpeace methods of "bearing witness," "direct action," and creating a "media mindbomb" became their trademarks as the organization expanded into fights for other environmental causes such as the Save the Whales and the Seal Pup campaigns.
WWF was founded in response to the destruction of Africa's natural habitat when British biologist Sir Julian Huxley wrote articles in an English newspaper warning that large portions of wildlife would become extinct if no action was taken. The articles attracted attention from scientists, businesspeople, and nongovernmental organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN had been set up in neutral Switzerland in 1948 by 18 governments and 100 NGOs with the objective of coordinating activities to preserve wildlife. As of the early 1960s, however, the IUCN did not have sufficient resources to carry out its projects, which led to the idea to form a new organization focused on fundraising and conservation in coordination with the IUCN. The WWF was constituted in Switzerland in 1961 with the purpose of conserving natural resources by acquiring and managing land while coordinating and communicating the necessity of conservation to a wide number of stakeholders.
The challenge for a business student is how to put a quantifiable measure on these organizations.
In the organizations' histories, some differences are clear: Greenpeace has primarily been a campaigner while WWF presides over conservation projects. In class, we talk about Greenpeace trying to convince others to deliverthe public good while WWF works directly onproviding the public good.
Other key differences include the composition of the founding members and the metho