Nonprofit organizations are working diligently to counter the effects of the catastrophic oil spill that followed the failure of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Groups are aiding in cleanup efforts, protesting, raising money, and engaging in various other activities to turn anger into action. However, some nonprofits are also facing harsh criticism for accepting donations and other gifts from the oil company, and the worst oil spill disaster in the country's history has jeopardized partnerships between energy companies and environmental nonprofits.

BP and some of the largest environmental organizations formed relationships in the past, which the oil company used to create an Earth-friendly image while helping the groups pursue their causes. Now, after the spill, nonprofits that are connected to BP, either through funding or any other work affiliation, are facing intense disapproval from their supporters.

The fact that organizations with ties to BP are facing scrutiny highlights the perpetual debate regarding the relationships between for-profit businesses and nonprofits and how a nonprofit should react when a donor becomes involved in scandal. More importantly to many is whether that relationship affects a group's ability to speak out against or criticize the sponsoring business.

Some insist that there must be a separation between industry and nonprofits, while others see value in some type of partnership. In this case, an environmental group may believe that working with a corporation will advance better corporate environmental policies.

The Nature Conservancy, America's third-largest nonprofit based on assets, has received the most media attention for its connections to BP. In late May, The Washington Post reported that the group "has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years."

The Nature Conservancy's website has been inundated with complaints from donors upset about the group's decision to work with and accept donations from BP. CEO Mark Tercek posted a statement defending the organization. "Anyone serious about doing conservation in this region must engage these companies, so they are not just part of the problem but so they can be part of the effort to restore this incredible ecosystem," he said. The group stresses that contributions from BP and other corporations make up only a portion of the organization's total revenue.

The Nature Conservancy's chief scientist, Peter Kariva, also responded with a blog post defending the group's collaboration with BP. "In fact, although we have never engaged with BP or other energy companies on their offshore Gulf drilling, maybe we should have — we might have been able to help site their activities to reduce the risk to the Gulf's globally significant habitats." Commenters fired off many angry responses to Kariva's post.

Reportedly, BP also provided $2 million in donations to Conservation International. In response to the spill, the group plans to review its relationship with BP. Conservation International Vice President Justin Ward said, "Reputational risk is on our minds."

Further, the Sierra Club and Audubon, along with other energy and environmental groups, joined with BP Wind Energy in 2007 to form the American Wind and Wildlife Institute. The Economist also reports that the Environmental Defense Fund helped BP develop its internal carbon-trading system.

Another example involves funding for an aquarium in California. The Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach recently opened a new sea otter habitat, which was funded by a $1 million donation from BP. However, the Los Angeles Times reports that the aquarium has no desire to distance itself from the oil company. There has also been no question of changing the exhibit's name, which will remain the BP Sea Otter Habitat. The aquarium's president said, "The aquarium is still open for future partnership with BP."

Paul Dunn, an expert on corporate ethics, told the Times that how these situations are dealt with "depends largely on whether the donor's scandalous acts are directly at odds with the recipient's mission. [. . .] People can see a direct link there. Aquatic animals are being harmed by the disaster."

The Economist notes the intricate relationships that many nonprofits have with large corporations and their possible repercussions. "The spill also highlights the question of whether NGOs should accept money for the advice they give to companies," according to the publication. "For organisations [sic] such as the Nature Conservancy, which protects ecologically sensitive spots by buying them or persuading others to set them aside, businesses are a big source of income. But partnerships with grubby firms risk turning off its million-odd individual donors."

Nancy Schwartz, a marketing consultant who works with charities, said in an interview on Katya's Non-Profit Marketing Blog, that in order to rebuild its reputation, the Nature Conservancy should recognize that accepting money from BP was a mistake. Schwartz said, "The fact of the Nature Conservancy's taking funding from BP for years, no matter how small a percentage it is of the overall organizational budget, is a very bad sign of organizational values gone missing or soft. And once those values are endangered, resultant policy decisions are too."

These issues address important questions for nonprofits – for example, whether or not a collaboration can thrive when the two entities have very different values and priorities. Such associations endanger a nonprofit's ability to question or criticize the business or industry. Whether a group can advocate around the corporation's work may also come under question when a group accepts contributions or other gifts from that company. Therefore, some believe that environmental groups should not be associated with businesses whose work may harm the environment.