Despite their willingness to forge closer relations with the corporate sector, many Canadian NGOs maintain a wary approach to corporate funding, and the dependence which it can breed. Although it may be a cliché to speak of 'sleeping with the enemy', NGOs are anxious to take precautions before tumbling into bed with the corporate sector.

An early experiment with product endorsement by Pollution Probe illustrates the internal tensions that such arrangements with the corporate sector can cause. In 1989, the Board of Directors agreed to endorse a line of 'green' products pioneered by the Loblaws supermarket chain. This agreement, when communicated to the general staff, caused serious splits within the organization, and led to a series of resignations.

Other, less controversial forms of engagement with the private sector are available. Perhaps the least risky is the trend towards more open dialogue with the private sector.

Apart from 'big tent' collaborations like the Care Coalition and the New Directions Group (see case studies), many modern allegiances tend to involve smaller numbers of participants. Julie Gelfand of the Canadian Nature Federation believes there is a trend away from large, multi-stakeholder forums towards much more focused strategic initiatives between one NGO and one company - or a small number of either.

As an illustration, she points to CNF's work on Canada's Endangered Species Act, where her group joined together with two other environmental groups and three industry associations in order to identify common ground on pending legislation.

Notably, no NGO has expressed misgivings about such forms of dialogue. However, engagements based on some sort of funding relationship tend to elicit some disquiet.

Apart from receiving one-off corporate donations of goods, equipment or cash, many NGOs also provide services underwritten by corporate money. There is some debate as to which funding model provides the greatest protection against undue influence.

Greenpeace Canada sits at one end of the spectrum. This well-known campaigning group rejects any form of corporate or government funding (whether it be project-specific, unattached, or fee-for-service). Greenpeace fears that any financial dependency will cloud its thinking.

This may be a valid concern for some in an era when, for example, corporate sponsorship of university research is raising a number of red flags. The notorious case of Dr Nancy Oliveri, a researcher at the University of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, raises the spectre of corporate pressure to suppress unfavourable research - and the tacit willingness of institutions reliant upon corporate funding to offer only lukewarm support for embattled researchers.

Of course, not all groups style themselves as watchdogs that need to remain aloof from corporate and government activity. Some believe that their greatest contribution can be made by working alongside business and government in a co-operative fashion. Monte Hummel of WWF Canada likes to describe his organization as a 'Do-Dog'. WWF is eager, he says, to harness goodwill in the business community.

'Business is not bad and business is not good,' he argues. 'It's a player. And there are good people everywhere.'

Hummel believes it is patronizing to speak of 'converting' businesspeople. In reality, companies can be far more sophisticated than NGOs when it comes to environmental problems.

Nevertheless, where funding is at stake, even the most pragmatic of NGOs use a variety of techniques to protect their credibility. For example, WWF Canada has a standard 12-page licensing contract which governs the use of its well-known logo.

Other organizations take different approaches. Stephanie Cairns of the Pembina Institute insists that the fee-for-service consulting model of business-NGO relations provides for a 'cleaner' funding arrangement, where the NGO is an equal partner whose 'deliverables' are clearly defined.. She says Pembina has managed to erect an internal 'firewall' to prevent its consulting relationships from affecting its advocacy work.

Other groups reject the 'fee for service' model, arguing that 'unattached' corporate donations come with fewer strings attached. About one-quarter of Pollution Probe's budget comes from corporate sources, but some three-quarters of this amount is 'unattached' - i.e. not earmarked for any particular project. The bulk of these corporate dollars are raised at a single annual corporate gala.

Pollution Probe's director, Ken Ogilvie, says the NGO will 'associate with good companies', but points out that its association with Ontario Power Generation has not prevented it from slating the company over its record on air emissions.

Ogilvie realizes that his organization has critics within the NGO movement, but remains unapologetic. He says critics fail to take account of the fact that Pollution Probe is 'in the solutions business'. This means that the organization will often take a seat at the table when other environmental groups won't, and work towards agreement with government and industry.

'You have to do your homework,' says Ogilvie. 'When you're supporting [a process], you're always more vulnerable than when you're attacking it.'

Sensitivity over funding relationships is not the only complicating factor in NGO-business collaborations. In the following section, NGO observers point to other common pitfalls of Business-NGO partnering.